Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Monday that the bill he will bring to the Senate floor will include a public health insurance option that individual states could decline to participate in.
"The public option, with an opt-out, is the one that's fair," Reid said. He said his decision was supported by the White House and by Senate Finance Commitee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Don't believe me? I don't blame you. But unless it's the cruelest parody video in history, here's the proof:
This hoped-for but still somewhat unexpected turn of events creates an entirely different, MUCH more positive dynamic for health care reform than just last week, when the PO-less Finance bill was still passed with full Democratic panel support. Evidently they were promised that things would improve with the merged Finance-HELP bill, but given the way things have gone with promises and deals over the years, you could forgive anyone for skepticism.
But now, assuming the House is able to follow through on its version, that is even stronger than the Senate bill, the likelihood that some form a of a real, nationally-based public option will be in the final legislation is now near 100%--and anyone who has been following this story during 2009 has to understand just how remarkable it is to be able to make that statement. The PO was dead a number of times, and it clearly did not have strong backing from the White House or the "sensible" members of the Senate. They had to be pushed to where we are now, and frankly, I'm not sure anyone can even remember the last time a legislative process was significantly pushed to the left.
One thing to note is that the version in the Senate bill will indeed include a state-based "opt-out;" that is, under some as-yet undetermined process a state could decide not to allow its residents to avail themselves of the public option in any health exchange. But as many have said, Medicaid is opt-out, too. So was the stimulus bill, and so are highway funds. The opt-out record for all three? Zero, despite much blustering and threatening otherwise.
No statement has hit my email box yet from Senator Wyden on this momentous accomplishment, but that's not necessarily meaningful. If and when something comes on, I'll append it. But Senator Merkley--who has been a very strong supporter of the PO, and helped put together the HELP Committee version of the bill that will be supplying much of the terms for the Senate configuration of it--is on the ball:
It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.
Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. States may choose to opt-out based on their individual needs and the input of their citizens, but this provision will ensure that most Americans will have the choice between private insurance or a public plan that operates on a level playing field. This is a reasonable compromise to this issue and takes us one step closer to action by the full Senate to finally pass health care reform and fix our broken system.
As nothstine aptly noted this morning, there's some national blogger blowback hitting Senator Ron Wyden in the face today: Atrios has named him the Wanker of the Day, and Digby goes into somewhat more detail that concludes the same thing--the continued obsession of Wyden for bipartisan results on health care reform is bizarre, pointless, and decidedly NOT conducive to getting effective reform passed.
The original source of their ire is a piece published last night by Huffington Post's Sam Stein, showing that indeed, Wyden continues to operate under the assumption that inter-party comity is the prime directive. That may have been relatively stomach-able when it was Gordon Smith and Mt. Hood Wilderness, but it's just damned foolish on health care. Some relevant bits from Stein:
In an interview this week with the Huffington Post, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) maintained that there was still "great interest in the Finance Committee for a bipartisan bill on both sides of the aisle" and he urged lawmakers to continue to pursue a collaborative path. He would not comment directly on news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had urged the Committee's Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop efforts to attract Republican support. But he also didn't hide his own preferences.
"I'm committed to the priority that the president laid out," said Wyden. "I think the president got it right. He said 'I want to get it done this year' and he also indicated that his first choice is to have a bipartisan bill because he recognizes that a bipartisan bill allows the country to come together."
Asked whether he would support cloture on health care legislation that he would ultimately oppose -- so as to preempt a Republican filibuster -- Wyden was noncommittal.
Funny thing, how the President's directive on bipartisanship is to be heeded no matter what--but his directive on including a public option to be ignored, much like his opinion that Wyden's bill is 'too radical' to be considered among reform options. Does anyone else find it extremely weird for an otherwise intelligent Senator to brush off contending with serious policy choices, but is ready to go to the mattresses over process--and a fully meaningless process at that?
What really chaps me, however, is the last line of that excerpt: asked whether he would support cloture, Wyden could not commit. Every Democrat in Congress, House or Senate, from ultralib Keith Ellison to newjack freak Arlen Specter, should be compelled to have a kneejerk answer ready every time this question comes up: Of COURSE I'll support cloture, even if I might vote against the bill. Failure on this point is to allow that maybe the absurd manipulations of a rump regional party have some merit, and should possibly be supported.
I have to say, while I've showed repeated and strong disappointment with Senator Wyden on this issue, I've defended his integrity and committment to doing his job in the best way he knows. As much as I think he's dead wrong and showing a seriously poor grasp of what Democrats were elected to do the last two cycles, if he thinks Broderism reigns supreme all I can do is bitch. But there is no logical justifiation--NONE--for hemming and hawing over whether you'd vote for cloture so that the concept of majority rule can actually start getting applied like it used to be. Under what circumstances could he possibly see for voting to prolong debate on a Democratic health care bill?
Reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning’s regularly scheduled leadership meeting. Baucus was meeting with Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Tuesday afternoon to relay the information.
According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.
As I said, if you're among the 3/4ths of Americans who would like a full and robust public healthcare option (FRPO), this is potentially very good news--a bloc of Senators has apparently made it clear to Reid that they will not support any bill that fails to provide a FRPO.
But what does this have to do with Oregon, specifically? Look at the particular positions Reid is redlining in his "advice" to Baucus: a "strong government-run insurance option"" and "taxing health benefits." Who can think of an existing health care proposal that lacks a FRPO and taxes health care benefits?
If you said "Ron Wyden's Health Americans Act," you've been paying attention. Despite protestations that his bill allows for states to create their own, much smaller public exchanges, and that only people with "Cadillac benefits" will see their benefits taxed, what you still end up with is a non-FRPO plan with a benefit-tax funding structure (among other things that I DO in fact like, such as capital gains and estate tax reform--but those things should be happening anyway).
I've said all along that a plan failing to include what Americans most want (FRPO) and including what they do NOT want (a tax on benefits), is not going to make much political headway. And now Reid has validated that analysis, declaring 10-15 immediate defectors on those grounds alone. Couple that with the evisceration that the President did on the central feature of HAA--shifting the insurance process from employers to individuals--and Wyden's plan starts to look an awful lot like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail:
{more, including fresh comments from Wyden in today's WWeek, below}
Update, 4pm--TPM, among other outlets, is hearing talk from unnamed sources that the leadership will propose that Lieberman keep Homeland Security and lose a lesser subcommittee chair instead. My head says that nobody really knows anything until after the secret ballot--and it being secret, neither leadership nor Lieberman would have a way for direct retribution, which may free some to actually vote their conscience--but my heart says spineless capitulation will be the way the 111th Congress kicks off their duties. How will Senate Democrats actually take on our country's problems, if they can't even stand up to Joe Lieberman? Kee-reist.
I've just finished calling Senator Wyden, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Senators-elect Jeff Merkley and Mark Warner* to register my comment that they should vote tomorrow to reward another deserving Senator with the plum Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, thus nor renewing the current Chair Senator Joe Lieberman. I would urge our readership to do the same.
Keener observers will see that I've framed the question somewhat differently than both the practical effect and the popular coinage of it--stripping Joe of the chair. Some might call it Lakoffian, but I think the color of that approach typically comes from reworking the truth until it's more sellable. This is, to me, pointing out a set of truths that are mostly being ignored in the popular discussion; ie, failing to sell an idea by not capitalizing on the best arguments regardless of salability.
The focus on the move being punitive is what keeps Lieberman's hopes alive, because it's a very difficult question to answer--"Wouldn't punishing a partisan rival be counter to the intent of the new Obama administration?"--if the move is seen as necessarily punitive rather than administrative or normally subjective.
Again, before we hit the fold: you have about 3 hours left of EDT today to get in a call before they close up shop in DC, and perhaps you can do your calls waiting for the bus or from a stoplight early in the morning when they'll already be open out there. Please contact at least Wyden and Merkley--who will get a vote as a member of the 111th caucus--before the vote tomorrow. OK, so more on where I think you should go in framing it in your comments, below.
*Some call as many Members as they can manage, but there is a big difference in attention paid to in-state constituents as opposed to those from other states. However, I lived in Virginia for 27 years and both voted for and enjoyed the term of Mark Warner, so I felt I might get a special dispensation. Relatedly, as Majority Leader I believe Reid should take calls seriously from all Americans.
I've already been discussing in the comments to yesterday's story on Wyden and FISA, that after failing to stand publicly with Chris Dodd over the weekend and into this morning on his attempt to filibuster their own Majority Leader, it turns out he pulled a master twist job on Harry Reid that--coupled with the pressure of tens of thousands of activist progressives like the Loaded Orygun community--forced Reid to table the bill until next year. He came at Reid from multiple fronts, marketed it and integrated it with friendly resources, and basically overwhelmed Reid with problems. It's worth taking a closer look at now, but at the end I've got a wild theory to float.
To try to recap: on Monday morning Senator Dodd prepared to offer an amendment to the base bill that Reid had selected, from the Intelligence Committee rather than the Judiciary Committee. He claimed because the Intel bill passed by a stronger margin, tradition dictated he offer that one as the "base." So that was sneaky enough.
But then he did something that is really troubling and conspiracy-inspiring: he set the bar for amendments at 60 votes, on the ostensible theory that Republicans would filibuster their way to a 40 vote majority anyway if they didn't like it. Ah, the bold strategizing of Harry Reid. So Dodd was now faced with an amendment that itself could likely get majority but not filibuster proof votes. Filibustering to stop a bill without a majority is one thing, but doing it to favor an amendment without a by-rule majority behind it is really kinda just ego.
o Dodd was basically neutered by the tactic. But it begs the question: why on earth would Reid pre-capitulate on any amendment? Talk about filibuster by fear! Is he just inept, or is he doing it for another, more sinister reason? Good God almighty, what did we do to deserve these leaders. Why hast thou forsaken us...at CHRISTMAS! (We're sorry about Jesus, we really are. We were so primitive then! Can't you let us off the hook now? Please?) Ahem. Below the fold, Wyden's frontal assault on inertia, Senate style. {more}
The Democrats plan to take a three-step approach to completing the deal. House leaders are considering an initial allotment of about $30 billion, ostensibly for the war in Afghanistan and some other military needs, which all sides in the deal recognize could be shifted to fund the Iraq war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then would allow Republicans to increase that amount to avert a filibuster of the spending bill in the Senate. The goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is $70 billion for the war, more than the $50 billion short-term funding that House Democrats initially proposed but far less than the $196 billion Bush has sought.
The Senate-passed bill would then go to the House for final approval.
Good GOD--are we really going to go through this again so soon? I was told by the Democrats not to expect another capitulation on the war until February! They caught me totally unprepared.
Thankfully, in a left-handed way we may yet be spared, so that we might be more properly disappointed a little further down the line. House Appropriations Chair David Obey is threatening to scrap the bill, but seemingly as much out of frustration with the White House for STILL threatening a veto as any idea that the bill, y'know, sells out our soldiers and their families on the twin altars of fear and pork.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
