I've been writing for weeks that the House needs to step up and improve the Senate health care bill in conference. They are co-equal branches and when a bill is to be merged, there are usually compromises made. Sen. Conrad screamed out on FNS and said that if the House tinkers with their precious bill, it won't pass.

CONRAD: It is very clear that the bill, the final bill, to pass in the United States Senate is going to be -- have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here. Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.

My sources on the Hill have told me that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes from progressives to pass the Senate bill as it stands. I know the White House doesn't want to play hardball now, but we do. What will Lieberman say if they do make changes to strengthen the bill? Will he be the man that killed health care reform to Americans?

mcjoan had an article posted yesterday that said the progressives appeared to be caving.

It's beginning to look like the House is going to cave into Lieberman and Nelson, too. TPMDC And co-chair of the Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva seals it.

In the interview, Grijalva confirmed that House Dems were beginning to discuss the idea of revising the Senate bill in conference to move up the implementation date for insurance coverage and make it more in line with the earlier date in the House bill. I asked Grijalva if he could support the bill if such a change were made, even if it lacked a public option or other similar concessions sought by liberals. "It would sweeten it somewhat," Grijalva said, "if they speed up the coverage mechanism."

He added: "That would be something I’d have to look at very closely."

Asked if he was suggesting that he’s open to supporting such an outcome, Grijalva answered in the affirmative, but insisted that he would have to evaluate the changes in conference before making any decision. He said House liberals would continue to push for a public component and a repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies. And he demanded that conference negotiations not merely "rubber stamp" the Senate Bill.

Moving up implementation dates would help, and that appears to be a House leadership might use as a "key arguing point" in the upcoming conference.

But today a new Politico piece paints somewhat different picture: House Dems: We won't roll over

House Democrats insisted Tuesday they have no plans to roll over for the Senate in upcoming negotiations on a health reform bill, even as they acknowledged it would be all but impossible to reinsert a public insurance option or force the so-called millionaire's tax on the Senate.

Either move would disrupt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s no-margin-for-error 60-vote majority. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team seem to have their sights set on lower-profile - but no-less important differences, like boosting affordability credits in the final bill and starting the insurance exchange a year earlier, which they did in the House.

Members will return the next week, and aides said they would still like to pass a bill by the State of the Union at the end of January or the beginning of February. But leadership staff in the House said that that doesn't mean they're prepared to just accept the Senate bill. {..}

"We want to move a bill by the State of the Union, but we want to do it because we're ready, not because we have to," an aide said.
Here are a few key points that can be fixed in conference, but please add your own...read on

Again, I've been writing that the House needs to stand up and be counted and they seem to be listening to our calls not to roll over for the Senate. I've contacted several members of the House for comment and will get back to you soon on that.

There's plenty of info on-line that explains what's wrong with the Senate bill, but here's a few key points. Add to the list in the comments.

* National exchange (rather than state exchanges)
* Public option
* Repeal anti-trust exemption
* Wealthy surtax, rather than middle-class insurance tax
* Better affordability provisions in House bill, including level of subsidies and Medicaid to 150% poverty.
* Repeal Stupak language.

So it may turn out that Harry Reid was the hero in the public option after all.

Much of the hoopla surrounding Reid's decision centers around a tense Thursday night meeting between President Obama and Senate health care principles--including Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)--at the White House. But according to sources briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations, things began boiling over earlier in the week, when a key question was, Who's going to take the blame when the public option doesn't make it in to the base health care bill?

{}

On the morning of the meeting, anonymous sources--and even some high profile senators--came forward to say that Reid was leaning very heavily toward backing the public option. And that's the news he and other senators brought to the White House that night.

"Reid actually asked Schumer to make the pitch," the first source said. When he did, "Obama was less than responsive and asked questions that suggested he preferred an option that could get the trigger and bipartisan support."

How the meeting ended remains unclear. But what we do know is that, early Friday morning--hours after the parties went their separate ways--Politico's Mike Allen reported that, according to a top administration official, Obama's preference was still for triggers, and he'd let the senators know that...read on

And mcjoan says that reconciliation may still be on the table after all.

This is the correct answer to the bleating of Joe Lieberman, and Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson. If you don't want to be a part of the most critical domestic policy reform in generations, we can always do it without you.

"Sure, it's always an option," Reid said after leaving his press conference Monday, when he announced that he'd be pushing forward with a public health insurance option with an opt-out provision that would give states the right not to participate....

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is in charge of corralling and counting votes, also said that reconciliation is still being considered. "The failsafe on this is reconciliation," Durbin said. "I hope we don't reach it because you can only do a limited amount of things on reconciliation."

Reid's comments were from Monday, before Joe put on his show, which could mean that Reid's now definitely put it on the table.

You know how much the Villagers hate this idea, so what that means to mean is it's awesome.

I just turned on CSPAN 3 and Chuck Schumer is speaking and wondering why Republicans are soo afraid of a public option and is talking about his amendment. He said he actually liked Sen. Rockefeller's amendment better, but he's pushing his amendment. He should be scolding members of his own party for voting against the public option.

Here are the five ConservaDems who voted against the public option earlier:

Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Carper and Nelson.

Another vote is due shortly. We will not stay silent. The House of Lords are more interested in their own power than helping the American people.
It looks like Ben Nelson is voting for Schumer's amendment.

UPDATE:

The more conservative Chuck Schumer public option amendment was just voted down 13-10.
Two votes flipped, Nelson and Carper, but Baucus, Lincoln and Conrad voted against it. Good doggies.

Jay Rockefeller is actually the chair of the health subcommittee in the Senate Finance Committee. Any "Gang of Six," or really any legislation on the Committee, should at least have his input, if not his controlling hand. Yet Max Baucus froze him out of the legislation in favor of Republicans who will never sign on to the final version and worthless schemes like the Conrad co-op proposal (which is just a thin ploy to get Blue Cross of North Dakota, which controls 90% of the market in Conrad's state, the "co-op" label so it can access federal start-up funds). Rockefeller may have the last laugh when the bill moves into the full committee.

U.S. Senator John Rockefeller, a Finance Committee member and a strong backer of a government-run insurance option, said on Tuesday he will not support the panel's healthcare bill in its present form.

Rockefeller told reporters he was unhappy with the lack of a government-run "public" insurance option in the bill, which is scheduled to be made public on Wednesday, and had problems with some of its changes in children's health insurance and Medicaid, or healthcare for the poor.

In particular, Rockefeller wants a public insurance option instead of the weak co-ops, better affordability provisions so working people can actually use the bill, and changes to the way that Baucuscare deals with the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid.

Rockefeller specifically said "There is no way in its present form that I will vote for it... unless it changes during the amendment process by vast amounts." Now, getting amendments through may not be an easy task. Each Rockefeller amendment in that committee would have to get the votes of all the Democrats plus at least a couple Republicans, if Baucus and Conrad hold firm on them. Considering that 10 of the 13 Democrats on the panel were completely shut out of the process during the Gang of Six talks, I'd expect a lot of support for what Rockefeller wants to do, but Baucus and Conrad can basically nullify anything meaningful on their own, should they want to.

Still, Rockefeller's advocacy is important because it sets the tone for Democrats with the full Senate, where votes like his will be needed. Jon Cohn explains.

A little over a month ago, right before the August recess, I spoke with Rockefeller at some length. And he was clearly wrestling with how to position himself.

No living senator has done as much to promote health reform as he has. It's the cause of his life and, for the first time, the goal is within reach. He admitted that voting against a package, even a flawed one, was difficult to imagine.

But Rockefeller also made clear his frustration with the compromises Baucus was making, whether it was replacing the public plan with a co-op or gradually reducing the subsidies to help people pay for insurance. He was particularly incensed about the changes to Medicaid and CHIP, programs to which he's devoted much of his time--and on which many West Virginians rely.

At the time, it seemed like Rockefeller was still on board, if only to help get a bill out of the Finance Committee and onto the Senate floor. But you got the feeling--well, I got the feeling--that he was near the breaking point.

Sometime since that interview, clearly, he's hit it.

Every vote is precious in the Senate, given that votes on the Republican side other than Olympia Snowe and maybe Susan Collins will not be forthcoming. Harry Reid has laid down the marker that anything less than 60 votes will lead him to go through the reconciliation process (and I don't think Reid's low poll numbers in Nevada will be much of a factor - the consequences of doing nothing on health care would be far graver for him). Therefore everyone in the Democratic caucus, essentially, represents an interest group to be satisfied. Rockefeller is standing up and saying that he's perfectly willing to vote against something that doesn't fulfill the promise of health care reform as he sees it. Bernie Sanders probably feels the same way. Maybe Barbara Boxer does. Or others. Max Baucus and his cronies will have to wrestle with that.

As someone recently said, what planet do they live on? Chuck Grassley and Ken Conrad fall all over themselves praising their co-op proposal, while Howard Dean, the Last Semi-Honest Man, calls it out as the political theater it is.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired of these expedient political solutions to real-life problems. After reading Matt Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone piece on health care reform (no link yet), I now understand just how thoroughly the Blue Dogs screwed us on the public option and I would cry no tears if it disappeared in its present form:

(CBS) Former Vermont Governor and doctor, Howard Dean said the health care co-operative proposal is purely for political strategy and has not worked in the past on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"That proposal is a political compromise, not a policy compromise," Dean said. "No one knows what it would look like and when it has been tried in the past it mostly hasn’t worked."

Dean, a strong advocate for the public insurance option, said people need the choice of a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. He argued that because private insurance companies are investor-owned, they are spending less money on health services and more on equity.

Medicare, Dean said, "is by nature much more efficient" because currently seniors can move, leave their job and get sick without having their coverage discontinued.

"Everybody over 65 has it and the question is 'Why don't we open up that program,'" he said.

[...] Dean said "we are getting pretty mixed signals from Senator Grassley. … I think the Republicans owe it to this country to give us a clearer sense of what they will and will not support."

Senators Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, appeared earlier on "Face the Nation," saying that the public option plan would not find enough support in the Senate. The co-op solution, they said, would be the only hope for a bipartisan agreement.

Dean also said the $600 billion dollar House price tag on health care is "reasonable" because it is less than we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Andrea Mitchell's show this morning, Chuck Todd was on to opine about health care reform. He said one outrageous thing and one right thing. The Toddster said that progressives might be attached to the public option because conservatives immediately attacked it. WRONG.

Mitchell:...how did this become the thing that liberals will not live without?

Todd: ...what's ironic is I think it became a big deal from the left because originally it was the immediate point of attack from some conservatives. Immediately. That that is the public option so you sort of wonder was it simply a political reaction from the left. "They don't like it, we love it."

Since there is no single payer, the public option is the only way that there will be sufficient competition that would force the health insurance companies of actually competing on the open market and making it possible for Americans to have a real alternative to them. The public option is our compromise you sad sack of know-nothingness. We wouldn't form a coalition around something just because conservatives object. That thinking only further illustrates how much the beltway despises us. We are thinking people who actually can evaluate policy on its merits and not out of resentment. When Kyl said "co ops' was just another Trojan horse for government run health care I thought that spoke volumes to the way they are treating health care reform. Wouldn't you expect the media to pounce and say that republicans never had any plans to become part of the negotiating process over health care reform? Even Chuck Grassley's insane statements haven't generated much of a reaction from the press.

What Todd is right about is that President Obama does not have any good spokesman for his positions other than himself. I've written many posts about this problem and I traced it all the way back to the general election. I also wrote about it here: With Surrogates like these... and here. The President shouldn't be the only person that can sell his positions, but the Senate is devoid of anyone that can speak with true conviction that can reach the American people. It's sad.
At least for progressives, Rep. Anthony Weiner has stepped up and become a real force in talking about the necessity of having a public option. More of him please.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1877)

PLAYS: (13287)

Anthony Weiner Leaves Joe Scarborough Momentarily Speechless When Arguing for Health Care Reform

See, here's the thing about the very concept of "bipartisan" compromise: The only Republican officials left are from the far fringe of their party. So you really can't negotiate with them in any meaningful sense - you can only capitulate.

And that's pretty much what the members of Max Baucus's little private party have done. They've stripped anything resembling real competition from their secret healthcare proposal. I wonder why Republicans are running this process? (And please note: not one member of this cabal is a progressive, nor from an urban area. Not quite representative of the rest of us, wouldn't you say?)

This would be a very good day to flood the offices of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the Democrats slicing and dicing away our future, with PHONE CALLS (not emails) telling them you want a strong public option - unlike President Obama, apparently.

WASHINGTON – After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits a requirement for businesses to offer coverage to their workers and lacks a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors, according to numerous officials.

Like bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by six members on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in a reach for bipartisanship on an issue that has so far produced little.

[...] In the Senate, officials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations.

They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a non-profit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace. The White House and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs.

[...] The senators involved in the negotiations are all members of the Senate Finance Committee, and include Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican. Others participating are Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.

But here's the real money quote:

Individuals would have a mandate to buy affordable insurance, but companies would not have a requirement to offer it.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we voted for Democrats - so we could hand over our fate yet again to the Republicans. Let them know what you think.

As I was pleased to note last night in an update, pressure from the Netroots was instrumental in getting Sens. McCaskill (D-MO) and Specter (D-PA) to come out against the Thune Amendment, an assault on federalism, personal security and the proposition that Dems might actually stand up for something.

The vote is at noon. Keep your calls coming, as we are on the cusp of wining this one and saving countless lives, not to mention shutting down a key element of the right-wing machine in DC: The NRA.

Here are your numbers once again:

Those whose minds need to be changed

Bayh (D IN) 202-224-5623
Bennet (D CO) (202) 224-5852
Collins (R ME) (202) 224-2523
Conrad (D ND) (202) 224-2043
Feingold (D WI) 202/224-5323
Hagan (D NC) 202-224-6342
Landrieu (D LA) (202)224-5824
Lincoln (D AR) (202) 224-4843
McCain (R- AZ) (202) 224-2235
Pryor (D-AR) (202) 224-2353
Reid (D – NV) 202-224-3542
Snowe (R – ME) (202) 224-5344
Udall (D – NM) 202-224-6621
Udall (D – CO) 202-224-5941
Voinovich (R- OH) (202) 224-3353
Warner (D – VA) 202-224-2023
Webb (D –VA) 202-224-4024

Those we must hold:

Kohl (D – WI) (202) 224-5653
Klobuchar (D – MN) 202-224-3244
Nelson (D - FL) 202-224-5274

UPDATE: (Nicole) The Thune Amendment, which needed 60 votes to pass, went down 58-39) Thanks to all who called. Nice to see we can beat the NRA.

Full disclosure: I have been hired to work with Mayors Against Illegal Guns on this effort, and couldn't be happier or more passionate about it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 142

PLAYS: 52

(Hummingbird - coming in at the tipping point in 1975 )

Hummingbird probably isn't a household name. This, their first album for A&M in 1975 didn't sell all that well and I believe the only place it's been reissued on CD is in Japan (in 2007). But prior to their incarnation as Hummingbird, they were collectively The Jeff Beck Group (only minus Beck). A few weeks ago I ran a Beck concert from 1972 which featured the members of this band during one of their last concert appearances together, before Beck left to explore other possibilities. Upon Beck's departure they continued on, known as Hummingbird and eventually landing a deal with A&M and two releases. I think one of the main reasons this band, and so many others of the same genre, didn't get deserved recognition was their timing. By 1976 the whole business underwent a big change with the advent of Punk and New Wave. Mellow was quickly becoming a hard sell.

Hummingbird features Max Middleton on keyboards, Bobby Tench on vocals, Bernie Holland on guitar, Clive Chaman on bass and Conrad Isidore on drums.

The track Ocean Blues pretty much sums up what the band's sound was all about. A tight, cohesive unit that's been sadly neglected but really deserves another hearing.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (3120)

PLAYS: (2056)

Olympia Snowe joined Andrea yesterday and was actually better than I thought she would be over her support of a good public option.
When Andrea brought up Conrad's proposal of non profit co-opts that appeases the right wingers who are dead set against the public option, she downplayed it's significance and said that we already use that system today and it wouldn't solve anything.

Snowe: ..a fall back plan in the event that the private plans do not work to provide affordable, quality health insurance to Americans is the way to go and I know some on my side view that as a government option as well, but I do think we have an obligation to make sure that every American has access to affordable plans with quality standards as well, not just on choices, but affordability and quality as well.

Mitchell: What do you think about D-Kent Conrad, the budget committee's proposal for cooperatives, non government cooperatives that would provide insurance?

Snowe: ...states today can create co-ops as a matter of fact, but we want to make sure that not just incorporating the status quo. In other words, if these co-ops were to be formed, Americans still could not have access to affordable, quality plans then you really do have to have a contingency plan, with a fall back plan of some kind to make sure that you do have the conditions to ensure that Americans do have access to an affordable plan.

Today for example in the state of Maine, you don't have the purchasing power necessary to leverage competitive prices so it really has kept so many people and so many small businesses out of the market, we want to make sure that's not what we repeat as we try to reform and provide universal access and coverage to all Americans.

Snowe sounds better on health care than many of the Democrats that are out there trying to knock out a public option like Kent Conrad is doing. And she actually uses the word universal and "quality" when speaking of the public option. I know she's been shaky before. And it's alarming that Conrad would throw liberal supporters under the bus just to appease republican obstructionists and destroy a public plan that would be good for America, but bad for the corporate Dems and Republicans that have been paid off by the Health Care Industrial Complex.

(Please donate to C&L's 2009 fundraiser if you can. We need your support.)