Schumer and Rockefeller: We Will Get a Public Option
Keith Olbermann talks to Sen. Jay Rockefeller about the foot dragging by the Republicans during the amendment process on the health care bill. Rockfeller still intends to try to have a public option included in the final bill. When Keith said it didn't appear that they have the votes to get it passed, Rockeller said "nothing is impossible, and that particularly includes the public option".
From TPM: Schumer And Rockefeller: We Will Get Public Option:
I just got off a conference call with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). They are confident -- very confident -- that health care reform will include a public option.
"The health care bill that is signed into law by the President will have a good, strong, robust public option," Schumer said.
How that will happen remains an open question. But the Senators assured reporters on the call that we're all going to get a taste of their passion and persuasiveness on this issue at the ongoing Senate Finance Committee hearings on Friday.
"I think it's a great idea," Rockefeller said of the public option. "Chuck Schumer thinks it's a great idea. And we're going to be all over it tomorrow."
Schumer said there will be a "full-blown debate" and that "even though the public option might be the underdog in the Senate Finance Committee, don't count it out."
"Tomorrow is the opening day in our big fight," he said.
Reporters tried to press on how, exactly, a public option would make its way out of the Senate Finance Committee, let alone make it to the President's desk. Will a public option amendment be tacked onto the Baucus bill? Will it be added on the Senate floor? How many votes do the Democrats have on a public health insurance option? Will they try to pass it through a 51-Senator reconciliation vote?
Rockefeller responded to TPM's question by saying "I think we have a good shot of getting it out of the Finance Committee."
He continued: "Don't rule it out. Don't fall victim to this feeling that it's not going to happen."
Chuck Schumer appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show and added this:
Schumer: Well tomorrow is really the first day of the fight. It won't be the last. We are going to offer Sen. Rockefeller and myself, two public option amendments and have the Finance Committee vote. Your viewers should know that this is the beginning of the fight because the Finance Committee is more conservative than the Senate as a whole. The Finance Democrats tend to come from rural and redder states. We'll then move to the floor of the Senate where the public option has a better chance than in the Finance Committee and then we'll move to Conference Committee with the House where it has a better chance still because the House has been very strong.
And my prediction is that at the end of the day we will have some form of public option, and a good form of public option in the final bill. Tomorrow's fight to be honest with you is uphill given the membership of the Finance Committee but we want to start the debate because the more the public hears what the public option really is the more they like it.
From what I heard today Baucus said there wasn't enough time today to get into the public option and has put it off until Tuesday when they return from their long weekend.
I could have misunderstood, but I don't think I did. Maybe by Tuesday Queen Snowe will have come to her senses.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Baucus is basically keeping his mouth shut. He's buried in bad press, so he's pretty much been de-balled.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
He's had US by the balls for quite a while now, so let's keep his balls far away from him.
Maybe THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO keep his attention.
Baucus doesn't have to say anything. He already did. If he has been castrated, then how did he put off the vote today?
Head of the Finance Committee. The whole "seniority" thing.
This is a process. Give it time. There is no bill yet. They'll let the GOP stall for a while...so they can tell their constituents how hard they fought...same with the Blue Dogs...but the public option will pass cause the nation wants it.
It's politics.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
is to keep insisting on a strong public option - or - better yet, the Rep. Weiner Plan - Medicare For All.
The insurance companies will have it their way. How is it that the "public option" is what many are hoping for now? I guess people do get the government that they deserve. What happened to single payer?
In April, when Obama was getting his budget passed, the Democrats slipped a tiny bit of text called a “reconciliation instruction” into the budget bill. What that means is that if a particular legislative issue (health care in this case) is not resolved by a certain date (October 15 in this case), that particular issue can pass through the Senate by means of reconciliation, which means there is only limited debate, and that it only needs a majority vote to pass, not 60.
First, everything that goes through budget reconciliation must obey the Byrd Rule: that means that the legislation must pertain to major changes to the budget; the Democrats would carefully write the public-option language to make sure they meet that standard, and presumably consult the Senate parliamentarian, and possibly Byrd himself. Anything that does not pertain to the budget would need to be passed in a separate bill which would require 60 votes like any other Senate bill; an example of such provisions would be the controls which Obama wants to impose upon the insurance industry, proposals which are actually very popular. Back in 1994 the parliamentarian shot down most of Hillarycare, deeming it “non-budget”, but the parliamentarian was backed up by a much stronger Senator Byrd than we have now, and by a much more conservative Senate than we have now. Today it wouldn’t be as hard. There is, however, a way around the Byrd Rule, even if the provisions are ruled “non-budgety”: with 60 votes, you can get a “Byrd-Rule Waiver” which reduces the threshold back down to 50+1.
Taken from - http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/how...
rest goes through several scenarios that could play out
requirement? Rather nicely, too, don't you think?
Read this then tell me how badly you "want" it:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/24-11
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Their (GOP and dawgs) strategy is to simply delay the game now. They're convinced that public support for a public option is waning and they plan to make every part of the process as slow as possible.
Dragging this out is the best possible strategy for a public option. Sides being taken now will show voters who to elect in the midterms. When the obstructionists are removed from office the public option will be a slam dunk.
The real risk is that BEFORE the midterms we'll get a watered down version (read "trigger" or some other BS) that will pay lip service to the idea but protect and reward the criminal insurance industry.
4 corners,
If the strategy is to continue to obstruct because the support for a public option will decrease, this strategy will not work. In fact, according to a CBS News poll the support for a public option was at it's lowest in August when it was at 60%. Now, after Obama's speech, the support has gone UP to 65%. Here are some other poll numbers that are very interesting. http://******/zrNwx
[Use the real url, not a mask-Sitemonitor]
I will believe all this when I see it.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
'Don't count your chickens before they hatch'...or something like that.
..to become available by 2015? Stay as healthy as you can folks!
Who said that?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Nothing significant will happen prior to 2012 and I'm just guessing what they'll have to give up to get a so-called public option through.
Is that you, Glen? ;o)
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Google it. It'll be AFTER the next presidential election.
There are some provisions scheduled to go into effect before that date, but the major structural overhaul (i.e. the Exchange) won't come into effect until Jan. 1, 2013.
While it's nice Jello Jay found a pair, or had them lent to him, between he and Turn On a Dime Chuckles, I'm not at all confident they'll vote to match their rhetoric.
and their blue dog cousins have shown the American people who they really are, haven't they? I can't imagine any single one of 'em being voted in again by thinking, sentient, rational people...
That said... meh!
They come from small states...in size and mind. They will be voted back in because their constituents are mindless lemmings.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
There is one word conspicuously absent from this segment:
Trigger
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
Don't worry, I'm sure the house of representatives will pass something regarding Trigger's devotion to Roy. Maybe even name a post office after the trusty steed.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Screwed.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
What does "strong" and "robust" mean to them?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
a robust insurance industry?
~
Corruption favors the wealthy.
If we do get a public option, it'll be compromised so much to please the Republicans and the insurance lobby that it'll be nearly impossible to qualify for and difficult to use, with doctors also having the option to opt out of it and refuse to serve those on the public option, like they do with Medicare.
about who will be the people allowed to enroll in the public option. In short, will it be deprived of the healthy pool and reduced to mainly people with conditions that will be quite costly. Thus not only making the PO non-competitive, but actually threaten its economic survival.
Just presenting it as a "competition" the insurance companies might be overlooking the risks.
Oh well...maybe this will come up Tuesday.
They'll say you're carping and complaining, but the devil is in the details, and I do not foresee any details that would significantly discomfit the Health Insurance Parasites...
shades of Karl Rove....
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30...
there's all kinds of ways to pretend/claim/spin to have a "public option" without actually having one.
these guys know ALL the ways to weasel around.
I still believe there will be nothing in ANY version of ANY version of a "health insurance reform" bill which discommodes the HIPs in any significant way. There will be nothing to prevent them, when the dust has settled, from fucking us.
If you think so, I'd like to play no-limit hold-'em with ya...
Obama was on Leterman discussing the European/Canadian approaches and then dismissing them for a "unique American way" of health reform. "Unique American way" is about as abstract as "Change we can believe in". Right now, the phrase "public option" is an abstract phrase. Be wary of abstract language. Something tells me, the resurrection of the "public option" has to do with salvaging the left, as the Baucus plan alienates both the left and right.
More and more, I'm seeing the slick lawyer in Obama, arguing the case for his clients, the insurance industry. While if we like our insurance, we can keep it, there is no mention of our options if we don't like our insurance. From what I understand, we can't ditch employer insurance for the public option.
If we want to see a good result, people are simply going to have to tell their congressman and Senators that health reform needs to meet the following objectives: (1.) It should cost no more per-capita than the per capita costs experienced by the other industrial countries, (2.) it should provide a level of service comparable to the service provided by the other industrial countries, and (3.) it should provide universal coverage, like the other industrial countries.
That's what I'm going to do, this weekend.
If we have a Bill that contains ":something" other than a public option, it might be to our longer term (ie, at least 10 years) benefit. If costs keep going up, etc, then it will be theoretically easier to make the argument for single payer.
Not that I'm convinced public option will actually be the "silver bullet" for curbing costs. And if it
isn't or fails outright, the "government" label attached to it will harm chances for making a single payer argument to the ignorant masses.
Just something to think about.
premiums for insurance coverage will be regulated? Could this be wishful thinking, aka an unwarranted assumption? Step back and look at the BIG picture. In 10 years, the corporations will have total control, and your opinion will not matter in the slightest. Neither will you.
Way to go Ed SChultz. The first 20 minutes tonight should be packaged and made required viewing for all Dems. Included in it: enough soundbite/video clips to provide the most devastating Ad possible of
Repubs and health care "in their own words"....
I fully support HR 676.
Comments are closed on this entry