Rachel Maddow gives the run down on recent developments with health care bill negotitions relating to the public option in the Senate.
Harry Reid: “We have a broad agreement.”
AP: Democratic Senators have reached a tentative deal to drop the public option.
Reuters: Reid says reports that the public option had been dropped were not true.
Maddow: The policy of the Public Option got negotatied over the last few months down to an almost unrecognizably weak proposal. What could possibly replace it that would keep progressive Senators happy? A policy with a cost containment component and expanding Medicare with an opt-in by premium payers for people at age 55.
Sanders: What you’re looking at {in Senate negotiations at the moment} is a trade-off
a) Expanding medicaid
b) Opening up medicare and
c) Weakening the so-called public option
Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or “public option,” for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers.
Instead, the government would essentially contract with a nonprofit insurer to provide a nationwide plan that would serve as the public option, according to officials briefed on the discussions. […]
Sens. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), both leading liberals, expressed reservations Tuesday evening about any legislation without a government plan. “I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach,” Feingold said. link
the public option. It’s easy to do HERE.
The GOP controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House and they used to completely dilute all their conservative policy proposals…
For example, Bush rammed tax cuts through the Senate with 50 votes under budget reconciliation… passed a law authorizing torture of prisoners in the Justice Department sidestepping both houses of Congress, and manufactured consent for a war in Iraq using fraudlent evidence of aluminum tubes as missile components and fraudulent warnings that the smoking gun could be mushroom cloud. And they’d do it again.
<
p>There must be a happy medium between the two apporaches – absolute party loyalty on all matters versus party loyalty on procedural votes and voting one’s conscience on the bill.
While I hear a lot of support for partisanship here on BMG, I do think there comes a time when politicians should vote for what they think is right. We see recent posts here about Sal DiMasi and how he was the third Speaker in a row with ethical issues. I think much of this concentration of power comes from the blind partisan loyalty we see from “both” parties.
<
p>I wish more Republicans had disagreed with Republican leadership during the first 6 years of GWB’s Presidency.
<
p>If a Democratic (pr Republican) Representative or Senator wants to disagree with a bill for valid reasons then I think they not only should do it but almost have the responsibility to do so and not simply “tow the line”.
If I thought they really stood on principle.
<
p>Joe Lieberman, for example, has been in a tizzy about the cost. Fair enough — but he never said word boo about the alleged extensive fraud committed by Iraq contractors or the excessive and expensive use of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. For that matter, where were Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh on that stuff?
<
p>Those three stand for themselves and virtually nothing else.
<
p>
While I deeply disagree with the minority of the Democratic Caucus that is opposed to a Public Option, I respect their right to that position as I too have been in the minority on an opinion.
<
p>Does that mean I will not pressure every Democrat to support a public option? No. However, it does mean I respect their right to take a stand and will leave it up to their constituents to decide if they made the right decision.
<
p>In the end, the bulk of the HCR bill does a lot of good as it is. If a compromise has to be struck to get enough votes, then so be it. If time shows that another route would have been a better option, while that will certainly be hard to face, the voters will undoubtedly punish those who were responsible for going too far, or not far enough.
You can do what you want.
<
p>If you recognize a substantive difference between a 60 vote requirement to end debate, called a cloture vote, and 51 vote majority needed to pass a bill, then you get the gist of my argument.
<
p>Principle is recognizing that Democracy means majority rules, 50+1 in the Senate. Blocking a vote is blocking majority rule. In this case, where Dems are blockong Dems, their party loyalty, the parties platform, and the President’s campaign promises all go out the window because of their narrow interests… four Dem Senators (D-Aetna). We and you (Republicans) reasonably expect more than that from our caucus members.
<
p>Blocking a vote on a bill cuts to a fundamental principle of our Democracy, majority rule. Traditionallly in Congress principle in partisan squables means allowing a vote and voting against it if that’s your conscience. A majority leader could enforce this by depriving bad actors of benfits and committee asignments earned by seniorty.
<
p>I find your argumnent inconsistent with arguments by Republicans who insisted on allowing up or down vote in the house and Senate and Judiciary Committee in the Bush years. While that was not a case of Republicans blocking Republican is was argument that was meant to compell Democrats to not use the filibuster to block up or down votes. Back then they were for it, now they’re against it. I have come to never expect any intellectual consistency with Republican positions.
<
p>Bipartisanship means some people in opposing parties agree. How they come to agree or that they don’t, is what’s important not a word that means they do.
<
p>Charlie Baker’s B is sliding off the logo. He should fix that.
and lose.
In my crystal ball I see the non-profit public option surrogates becoming a goldmine for private players, with CEO’s making seven figures or for-profit subcontractors raking in millions, with negligible public benefit. Public policy should not be dictated by “industry concerns”- it’s amazing that after everything we’ve been through that insurance companies, through their toady Lieberman and assorted other allies, have finally succeeded in derailing the public option.
Maybe it’s not over yet. Maybe the public option would not have been a panacea anyway. But still, it’s so disturbing that a handful of corporations could veto what appeared to be the will of the majority of Americans, with acquiescence or indifference from Canellos and the rest of the media.
<
p>The Globe forgets, an array of nonprofit private plans is what brought us BC/BS, which takes 20% of you health insurance premuim for overhead, leaving just 80 cents on the dollar for health services. Medicare spends 97 cents on the dollar for health services.
<
p>The Globe makes its assessment without he benefit of a CBO score so we don’t know what this comprimise cost as compared to a strong or weak public option.
<
p>Both the Globe and the Democratic Party must ignore 65% of all Americans who want a public option including Democrats, independents and Republicans because four Democratic Senators – Leiberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu – have THREATENED TO FILIBUSTER THE PROCEDURAL VOTE TO VOTE ON THE BILL!!!
<
p>
Does anybody care about the health reform/ public option issue anymore? It used to take up a lot of space at BMG.
but I’m partial to both stories. What’s the over/under on the number of girlfriends/ chances for a public option?
Martha falls in with the compromise (Feingold hasn’t)
<
p>
<
p>Has anyone asked Kirk and Kerry?
I still would not want a mandate if there is no public option, but between lowering the Medicare age and offering the public a chance to buy into the federal employee plan this would still be a huge improvement.
to provide abortion service reimbursments, which makes it just as imperfect a solution as a public option with Stupak.