Dems Express Willingness to Alter Public Option

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 07:26:41 PM EST
Tags: health care reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Are Democrats really willing to forego the public option? Sounds like it.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber's second-ranking Democrat, acknowledged he was open to changing the bill's controversial government-run public health insurance option favored by the left."We are open because we want to pass the bill," Durbin told the NBC program "Meet the Press."

Now what? Nate Silver says progressives should give it up, it's not that big a deal anyway and reconciliation could lead to other good provisions being stripped. Jon at Firedoglake disagrees. And FDL's Jane Hamsher explains the progressive reasoning behind choosing the public option as a fighting point. [More...]

The Amendment process will see Republican attempts to weaken the good in the health care bill on a lot of issues-- the public option is just one. As I've said all along, I'm going to wait and see what the final bill looks like before making up on my mind on whether it should pass.

As of now, the only thing I'm sure of is that because I'm healthy, have a high-end plan and not old enough for Medicare, the bill is going to cost me more money in premiums and taxes. I'm okay with that, as long as the final bill contains real benefits for millions of other people without insurance or access to medical care.

If the benefits turn out to be cosmetic, paltry or non-existent, then I won't be and I won't care if the bill fails. But of course, if a benefit-stripped bill is what we get, it means Obama's bill and his agenda were defeated and Republicans will take credit for saving the country from a more disastrous Democratic bill.

Obama's stuck now. He has made this his signature issue and he can't afford to fail now. He needs some version of a health care bill to pass -- any version -- so I'm not looking to him to stand up for what's right. What a mess.

< Algeria Tries, Acquits Two Released Gitmo Detainees | Sunday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dems Express Willingness to Alter Public Option | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There's another scenario (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 07:36:17 PM EST

to these:

[If] the bill is going to cost me more money in premiums and taxes . . . I'm okay with that, as long as the final bill contains real benefits for millions of other people without insurance or access to medical care. If the benefits turn out to be cosmetic, paltry or non-existent, then I won't be and I won't care if the bill fails.

There is this, which I think is more probable with this sort of "leadership" by Obama, Durbin, et al., who want to claim they accomplished reform:

The bill costs us more money in premiums and taxes and for millions of other people the benefits turn out to be cosmetic, paltry, or non-existent. Then we will care that the bill passed -- and so will millions of other voters.

It's all so confusing! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:35:30 PM EST

This Week had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the HCR panel this morning. She disappointed me during the election/nomination process, but not nearly as much as she did today. Marsha Blackburn read the entire section where the recommendations of the panel will rule the procedures that are covered (right now mammograms and paps being the most talked about). DWS talked over her and argued those were nothing more than recommendations, until George S sided with Blackburn on exactly what that clause said. DWS is herself a breast cancer survivor under 50.

Who in DC can we trust? We can't get an honest review of HCR from any of them...


Every single member of congress (none / 0) (#8)
by nycstray on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:49:07 PM EST

needs to be stripped of their health insurance.

And if the preventive health panel is not going to be listened to, disbanded. What the h*ll is the point of them coming up with these recommendations if the admin is going to tell us to ignore them (for now)? I'm mean if they aren't going to implement their recs down the road and all . . . .


: Nancy Brinker (none / 0) (#26)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:18:47 PM EST

the founder of Susan G Komen was on MTP this morning. She took a very sensible approach to what these panels were saying, who these people are and that they study the statistics from a purely scientific viewpoint.
All these conflicting messages from people who should be knowledgeable on what that bill says we really need to scream for someone to start telling the truth. How many of the reps and Senators who are responsible for this will still be in DC when the thing becomes real in 2014?

that's why they are (none / 0) (#16)
by coigue on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:41:39 PM EST

considering a late start date.


: Well, there is that, and (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by KeysDan on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 09:21:47 AM EST

the cost estimate is so much less, when most of the legislation's benefits and most of its costs kick-in after the fourth year of the ten-year plan.

I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 07:38:13 PM EST

but what I'm hearing is that Obama has totally screwed up but it's just too tough for the rest of us and we'll just have to swallow a crappy bill so Obama can save face? This totally ignores the fact that a crappy bill can be worse than NO bill at all and Obama has allowed the GOP a win/win position. They win if it passes and they win if it doesnt. Perhaps one day he'll quit letting them kick him in the groin and laugh in his face.

A good friend who was firmly behind (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by oculus on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 07:46:41 PM EST

Obama from day one is not happy about current plans on HCR. Friend says it is too early to pronounce his term a "fail." Hoping things will improve. Hope friend is correct. This is the first word of discontent I have heard from friend.


Your friend is confused (none / 0) (#55)
by Rashomon66 on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 02:22:09 PM EST

Tell your friend that maybe they don't understand the way government works. This isn't Obama's bill. It's a House and Senate Bill. Obama cannot make these people vote one way or another. No President can.


: No (none / 0) (#56)
by jbindc on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 04:58:15 PM EST

If you think Obama's hands are completely out of it, and he can't make Dems vote on a bill the way he wants, then you don't understand politics. They may not always vote the way he wants, but every president has a say in how his party members vote - he's the head of the party for cryin' out loud. All he has to do is threaten to get behind a challenger or leave a vulnerable Dem out to dry and their career in DC is more than likely done. These people care more about their jobs than actually, you know, accomplishing some good.

Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by lambert on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:28:38 PM EST

Obama has totally screwed up but it's just too tough for the rest of us and we'll just have to swallow a crappy bill so Obama can save face?

Yes.


Durbin? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by nycstray on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:33:07 PM EST

As in this Durbin?

But now that the results of our online poll are in, something else is now clear: the American people who voted for change last November will settle for nothing less than a robust public option.
Over 80,000 people have responded to our poll, proving Americans know the difference between a strong public option and a weak one -- and a weak one just won't do.

I am sharing these results with my colleagues in the Senate this week. If any member of the Democratic caucus thinks no one will notice the absence of a robust public option in the final health care reform bill, they have another thing coming

From an email he sent regarding this poll. Emphasis his.

These people are disgusting. And I'll put Obama at the top of the list if we get stuck with sh*t! just to cover his a**.

Individual Congressmen and women and each (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by MO Blue on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:52:23 PM EST

Democratic organization has cashed in big time from individuals and the various industries on what will wind up to be a giant give away to insurance and pharma.

BTW, did everyone notice that the Senate version has pushed back starting implementation until 2014?


: So Obama doesn't want to run on JCR in 2012... (none / 0) (#31)
by lambert on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:29:35 PM EST

... and the Congress critters don't want to run on it in 2014!
What does that tell you?

The public option (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Steve M on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:16:15 PM EST

is one of the most popular parts of the bill, so you just know the Democrats will find a way to jettison it in order to get the bill passed!

Not sure if anyone else noted the quote of the day:

U.S. Rep. John Conyers is on Barack Obama's case again, this time saying the president has failed to show enough leadership on health care and suggesting he's been "bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal" during the debate.
Earlier this month, the Detroit Democrat chided Obama -- whom he backed in last year's election -- for "sucking up to the wrong people" on health care.
On Thursday, Conyers told radio host Bill Press' national show that progressives "held their noses" and voted for a health care bill watered down in an attempt to appease critics.
"I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House," said Conyers, who added that the White House strategy appears to be, "Give us anything and we'll sign it and declare victory."

Gee, ya think?

Yes (none / 0) (#21)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:56:59 PM EST

I noticed it the other day. But it's funny enough to be the quote of the day for another day!


: Conyers' quote is funny because it's true! n/t (none / 0) (#25)
by Ellie on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:14:05 PM EST

The public option is only "popular".... (none / 0) (#33)
by lambert on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:32:25 PM EST

... because the "progressive" bait and switch has now contaminated the polling. People think that public option is like Medicare. It isn't. When people figure out they've been conned, they won't be happy.


: Not to worry (none / 0) (#42)
by MO Blue on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:56:13 PM EST

People might not be happy when the Insurance Profit Protection and Enhancement Act is implemented but I doubt it will be caused by an option that will probably not be included.

Strip out everything but the pragmatic reforms... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by lambert on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:27:17 PM EST

... that help people immediately.

Bag everything else, including both [a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan] and the health exchanges, since nothing important kicks in there 'til 2013 and it takes 'til 2019 to get up to speed anyhow.

Then declare victory, and reboot the process in the spring. This time, put Medicare for All on the table.

Senate pushed back the date (none / 0) (#32)
by MO Blue on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:30:20 PM EST

until 2014.


: Oopsie! (none / 0) (#36)
by lambert on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:36:06 PM EST

Oh well, it's only another 45,000 lives.

: There are a number of (none / 0) (#37)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:36:14 PM EST

changes that take place immediately.

I guess that would be "alter" (none / 0) (#4)
by Spamlet on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:10:57 PM EST

in the sense of what we do when we alter a male dog or cat.

Read Kaddish . . . (none / 0) (#7)
by Doc Rock on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:48:52 PM EST

. . . over the hapless Democratic Party--the left is looking to alternatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what might they be? (none / 0) (#12)
by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:19:17 PM EST

Just wondering.


Sitting (none / 0) (#14)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:24:24 PM EST

home is about the only one I can come up with.


: Or sitting, to continue (none / 0) (#15)
by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:30:40 PM EST

the metaphor, shiva for the administration.

Where Are the 60 Votes? (none / 0) (#10)
by Michael Masinter on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:13:44 PM EST

I want a public option as much as anyone, but where are the 60 votes going to come from? Does anyone think Obama, Reid, or any combination of progressive democrats can secure the votes of Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieu, etc.? Landrieu cost $100 million and she's still not on board.

The days of LBJ style leadership are long gone; the full time media coverage precludes the kind of back room deals he could cut for votes. The simple truth is that nobody -- not Obama, not Hillary, not Teddy Kennedy -- can make Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and the rest vote for a public option. And there aren't even close to 51 democratic senators and a parliamentarian willing to kill the filibuster through a parliamentary maneuver not even the republicans and Dick Cheney would have dared to try.

Vent, scream, whine, whatever, but the bottom line is that without 60 votes, there is no bill.

Well (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:21:52 PM EST

if there aren't 60 votes then there won't be a healthcare bill this year. It's as simple as that. Once you start stipping the bill to please the GOP then you're also going to start losing people like Feingold.

Put it away and try again when we have some leadership in the paryt.


Good (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by lambert on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:33:37 PM EST

It's a bad bill, and it should die.


: Why, yes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Spamlet on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:51:47 PM EST

And it seems that some who have ranted long and loud about the "madman theory of political bargaining" may not have been, in the event, such madmen themselves, no?

I'm confused. (none / 0) (#17)
by ChiTownDenny on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:42:01 PM EST

Didn't the Senate just vote 60 for cloture? Isn't the next voting on amendments and then the Senate bill? What new "60" is required?


Just (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:43:48 PM EST

because they voted for cloture doesn't mean they are going to vote for the acutal bill. Landrieau has voted for cloture and says she won't vote for the bill as it is.


Thanks for the reply. (none / 0) (#19)
by ChiTownDenny on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:45:40 PM EST

So then, doesn't the Senate just need 51 votes and then to merge with House bill?


If Reid (none / 0) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:55:11 PM EST

decides to do reconcillation then it only needs 51 votes but I dont know if he's willing to do that.


Sorry to be dense, (none / 0) (#23)
by ChiTownDenny on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:01:38 PM EST

but doesn't the Senate just need 51 votes to get their bill to be merged with the House bill and then both houses need a simple majority for "THE BILL" to be presented to Obama for signature? Am I missing something?


: You are missing the bait and switch. (none / 0) (#54)
by Salo on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 02:20:13 PM EST

Or that the party has sold teh population down the river on healthcare.

This 60 votes were to allow (none / 0) (#30)
by MO Blue on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:28:58 PM EST

the bill to come to the floor for debate. Another 60 votes will be required to end the debate (cloture) and allow an up or down vote.


: Now I see. (none / 0) (#39)
by ChiTownDenny on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:41:03 PM EST

Thanks.

No, the real bottom line (none / 0) (#22)
by shoephone on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:59:40 PM EST

is that a bill without a meaningful public option results in the demise of the Democratic party. The only people who don't get that are phony Dems and their apologists.

Watch out: November 2010 is not going to be pretty.


Sorry to say, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Spamlet on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:07:56 PM EST

I wonder about that:

a bill without a meaningful public option results in the demise of the Democratic party

I'm wondering if the FDR Dems, who largely backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries, are now outnumbered by these "new" Dems and by the "moderate" Republicans who are so understandably willing to vote with them.


If that's true... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by lambert on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:35:33 PM EST

... that's because the FDR Dems left the party to its fate. If you don't believe Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries, she certainly came very, very close. And see this map.


Personally, I believe she did (none / 0) (#45)
by Spamlet on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 11:19:39 PM EST

win the popular vote in the primaries. But it's also true that the outcome of the Democratic primaries was to be based on numbers of delegates, not on the popular vote, and that, as a result, the superdelegates were going to decide who won.

Strictly in terms of "teh math," I strongly disagreed with the decision of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Commiteee, but I understood (and also disagreed with) the political calculus behind the RBC's decision to break its own rules. Now, it seems, we reap the whirlwind.


But you don't know how many (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by Cream City on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 11:29:40 PM EST

delegates would have voted for her, because the roll call was called off -- or, we might say, it was aborted. That's the last time that the Democratic Party stood for aborting anything. . . .

And according to delegates from my state, who never got to cast their votes, they and many others were so ticked about the machinations -- the Chicago Way -- pulled on them for days by then that there just might have been some surprises coming.

Otherwise, why would the roll call have been called off for the first time ever?


Because Ms. Clinton fell on her sword for (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by oculus on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 11:32:31 PM EST

the good of the party?


: Yes -- (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 08:39:35 AM EST

you bet, because according to the delegates, an old-fashioned floor battle was in the works. And she didn't want them to fall on their swords for her, with the punishments that would have been meted out to her delegates, nor would it have been good for the party to have them silenced, nor would a divided party have won the White House.
And she felt that winning the White House was necessary to fix the economy, win health care reform, restore the Constitution . . . how's that working? :-)

Well, we're going to find out (none / 0) (#27)
by shoephone on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:23:17 PM EST

From what I'm seeing and hearing, there are more than enough brassed-off, former Obama supporters to jump ship with bona fide liberals in 2010. As for the inevitable, "But, where else are you gonna GO?" argument, it's not going to have much cache in upcoming elections. People want their health care. They also want health care for their friends, co-workers, family members and neighbors. I'm not impressed by what spineless, middle-of-the-roaders say, because they say it every single election season. I think there are more of us than there are of them.

YMMV.


Hot Air (none / 0) (#41)
by Politalkix on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:54:32 PM EST

So why can't the "bonafide liberals" in Arkansas force Blanch Lincoln to support a strong public option? HRC won the primaries in Arkansas by a huge margin.


Careful, your ignorance is showing (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by shoephone on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 11:03:17 PM EST

I'm talking about what the results will be in 2010.

Reading is FUNdamental.

Anyway, I live in Seattle, where we have more liberals per square inch than almost anywhere in the country. I know what people in my community are saying, and if Murray and Cantwell vote for a bill without a public option, they are going to have one hell of a rough ride come re-election time.

FACT.


No (none / 0) (#44)
by Politalkix on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 11:13:45 PM EST

Murray and Cantwell are the least of the problems on HCR right now.
Cantwell has other problems too. Big employers like Boeing are leaving the state and moving to places like South Carolina.


Funny (none / 0) (#48)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 05:54:11 AM EST

You telling a Seattleite that Boeing is leaving the state. Obviously, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Boeing opened a second manufacturing line for the Dreamliner in SC. The bigger line remains in Everett, WA, where it's been for decades. That's the governor's problem. Murray and Cantwell don't run the state.

Cantwell has problems, but you have not come close to stating what those are. She's not the one up for re-election in 2010, though. And, both of them are as important to HCR as any other senators...we're watching how they vote.


Companies do not leave a state (none / 0) (#49)
by Politalkix on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 06:37:19 AM EST

in one shot. Boeing has been steadily decreasing their footprint in Washington for some time now, the pace is accelerating now.
It is also important that everybody watch how their Senators and Representatives vote. No quarrels there.


: They also don't leave because of (none / 0) (#53)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:40:46 PM EST

the US Senators.
Boeing merged with McDonnell-Douglas years ago. The M-D executives orchestrated the headquarters move because Gov. Gary Locke (a current member of the Obama administration) refused to meet their demands. They gave him enough time to take them seriously, he decided to call their bluff and the State of Washington lost.
The Everett plant will produce more than twice as many airplanes a month as the SC plant will. Unless the current governor repeats Locke's mistakes, they will stay for as long as is feasible.
What other major companies are you talking about that are leaving the state? And, really, which ones are leaving because of Cantwell?

They really need to rename the bill (none / 0) (#38)
by shoephone on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 10:37:20 PM EST

"Mandates for All."

Why would you have waited for The Prez (none / 0) (#52)
by Radix on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:18:40 AM EST

to what's right as to what's more politically beneficial for him?

so I'm not looking to him to stand up for what's right. What a mess.

When has he ever done otherwise?