Sixty House Progressives: We'll Kill Any Health Care Bill Unless It Has A Public Option
Sixty House Democrats have warned the Obama administration--in no uncertain terms--that they'll vote against a health care bill unless it contains a public option.
In a letter sent yesterday to Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus write, "We stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is "not the essential element" of comprehensive reform."
We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President's signature, MUST contain a public option.
The letter comes in response to recent statements by members of the administration, which calls into question their commitment to the public option.
You can read yesterday's letter here. The 60 signatories are the 57 who signed this, separate letter, plus three more. Back in July, progressives warned House leaders that a number of concessions to Blue Dog Democrats would have to be reversed if the final legislation was to stand a chance on the House floor. Those differences were quickly papered over, but they were also much smaller differences. Now, they're letting it be known that they will oppose any legislation--the House bill or the conference report--will die if it doesn't contain a public option.
Your move, Senate.
Late update: The 60 members on board include the 57 listed here, along with new additions Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) Robert Wexler (D-FL), and Gregorio Sablan, a non-voting delegate from representing the northern Mariana Islands.


















Obama's 'Health Plan B': Outsource Public Option to 'Out-of-Network' Countries
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=8319
August 18, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they "warning" Obama?
He can't pass any bills, he can't even vote present - he's not in Congress anymore.
August 18, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good move, but I'm not quite clear how the White house can get the votes in the Senate.
Any ideas??
Dr. Dean's website adds u pthe votes and I recall we are currently at about 45 votes in the Senate.
I think the House is safe, it will be a squaker but will succeed.
It's the Senate where our good friend Senator Max Baucus is holding things up.
August 18, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it will be very close in the Senate. The only way to get those wavering votes is to convince them that all the furor over death panels and all the other nonsense will be forgotten once the final bill is passed and people begin to see the results. People will be happy with the final result and it's better to be on the right side.
August 18, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ask Bush and Cheney how they did it.
August 18, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, no matter how much Kent Conrad wants us to forget it, they only have to get 60 votes for cloture. They easily have 51 votes that would pass the most liberal bill under consideration. Voting against the bill? Okay. Siding with the Republicans and against your party, your president and the will of the nation on a cloture vote? Not okay.
August 18, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The onyl question that matters today is this: How do we get the votes in the Senate? As has been noted, I dont think we need 60. Dems who oppose will nto fillibuster. But we still fall short.
Here's Nate's numbers:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/how-many-votes-does-public-option-have.html
August 18, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good old-fashioned arm twisting -- the kind of thing Rahm is supposed to be so good at. Looks like his may be the first arm that needs twisting.
Since senators are insulated from the public by their six-year staggered terms, archaic rules system, and tons of lobbyist money, the only recourse we have to get them to pay attention to what the vast majority of the public wants is 1) strong leadership in the senate that can exert the power it holds over members (good luck with that) or 2) arm-twisting from the White House. Of the two, only the second even seems plausible at this point.
August 18, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, missing the first one, only the WH is left. We can also primary these mofos. Are there any well-heeled Dem interest groups that can back an opponent? Say SEIU? Sestak has done wonders for us in PA.
August 18, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
democratic leadership is an oxymoron
August 18, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
By asking Harry Reid to grow a pair, twist arms, threaten loss of committee positions, threaten loss of DSCC support, etc. That's how the Republicans did it.
To get things done, sometimes you have to be able to play hardball with your own party members. F***, Reid and the Senate Dems are so neutered that they couldn't even punish Lieberman for campaigning for McCain. Don't expect much of anything out of them ... ever.
August 18, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even when you're making a good point, you can't resist dropping in a PUMA calumny, can you?
August 18, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo. It was damn well about time for progressives to grow spines and establish that they're no longer going to let themselves be rolled to appease Blue Dogs. The progressives are in a strong position here- most are in safe blue districts and they know that it's the House Blue Dogs, and not themselves, who will lose seats if voters give the Dems a hard time in Nov. 2010. So, Blue Dogs, you want to try to run on a record of preventing the people's business from being done? Go ahead, make our day.
August 18, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems the Blue Dogs think they can ingratiate themselves with their constituents back home by voting like Republicans. That never works. Why would they vote for a Democrat that votes like a Republican when they can just vote for a real Republican? They need to figure out what they're FOR, not what they're AGAINST. They'll do a lot better getting on board with a real reform package. By the time the 2010 elections roll around, people will be happy with the result and all the BS about death panels will be forgotten.
August 18, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only possible positive role for the Blue Dogs to play is as the nucleus for a slightly-less-blitheringly-insane party to replace the currently-imploding Republicans as the second party in our two-party system.
The way to get there is to so totally humiliate them, bulldozing a strong public option through in the way that most marginalizes their claim to power. That will cause them subsequently to bolt the party, and establish the nucleus of the center-right party that the Republicans are no longer competent enough to constitute.
August 18, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight. When the Repugnuts controlled Congress, their rule was that nothing passed unless a majority of the majority supported it. It's about time the Dems enforced the same standard. Progressives are the majority of the majority. Plus, the votes are there to pass a strong public option in the House. Pass it, put the pressure on the Senate to act, and then if necessary, fix things in Conference.
Mike Lux had an interesting piece in yesterday's HuffPost speculating that the Conference Committee could split health care reform into two bills, with the piece dealing with the public option passing through reconciliation. That sounds plausible and it would be a way to win.
August 18, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rep from my old district is in the CPC; here's the letter I just sent her. It's incredibly important that they hear from constituents so they know they're not alone in this fight. If you've got links to the people in the CPC, let them know you support them. The news is only showing the crazies; make sure to counter them where you can.
"Though I am no longer a constituent of yours, I nevertheless wanted to voice my strong support for yesterday's Congressional Progressive Caucus letter to President Obama. A strong public option must be the foundation of any health care reform bill, and I appreciate your strong and principled stand in favor of such an option.
"Though it seems not to be seen as such in this country, health care should be protected as a fundamental human right. A strong public health care option is the only way to guarantee adequate care for everyone, regardless of income, location, or previous health issues. It is essential that we provide this option - at the very least - to protect that right.
"This issue is more than just politics to me. I recently moved back to the United States from England - a country where, I might add, I received excellent, free health care for four years - and I do not yet have health insurance. I live in daily fear of the accident, small or large, that could bankrupt me and derail the future that I hope to build in this country. I live in longer-term fear of the important pre-existing conditions that could be omitted under whatever health insurance I might have in the future. No American should have to live this way. Please, tell your colleagues in the CPC to continue your stand in support of a public option. Right now you are the only people truly protecting me and the 45 million other Americans one accident away from disaster."
August 18, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHO are the 60? I want to make sure my congresswoman is one of them.
August 18, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Firedoglake.com has much more thorough run-down on the 60. Their coverage of the health-care storm far surpasses any liberal blog out there, including TPM.
August 18, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/17/60-members-of-congress-say-no-public-plan-no-conference/
August 18, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
August 18, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Haydon?
August 18, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leave it to us dems to fuk something up.
August 18, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little perspective here - it's not like we're about to invade Iraq again.
August 18, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fight is not over. Stand firm, progressives! Don't whine, just keep fighting.
August 18, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
good for them. Stand strong. It's not necessarily their final move in this health reform debate, but it's good to see some people playing hardball other than traditional beltway Republicans.
August 18, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud the Progressives for drawing a line in the sand. Obama made a committment to the American people to deliver healthcare reform that includes a robust public option. He can't spin this. It's on tape from his own campaign commercials. He says he knows how to play Chicago style politics. Well, it's time to play Lyndon Johnson style politics and twist some arms and knock some heads and threaten to spill some secrets. This IS a ONE TIME in several decades opportunity for reform. He needs to start doing a much better job making his case and playing hardball with the members of Congress. That's what LEADERSHIP is about. By the way, it's thanks to Rahm that some of these Blue Dogs are in Congress instead of more progressive members. If Rahm is really such a nasty enforcer, it's time to prove it.
August 18, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I don't care if they include a public option or if they bust up the insurance oligopoly and force market-based competition. But, they have to do one or the other if they want to reduce costs. Obama should know that he forced the public option on himself when he promised not to put pricing pressure on pharma. (I don't know how he can promise this without a public option other than to assure them he will veto any bill that includes drug importation.) So, what did he expect? So far, this administration has been absolute bullsh!t.
August 18, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
you make it sound like their are two or more viable options for creating competition in the health insurance marketplace. As if any of the alternatives would be equally effective. Is that true?
August 18, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one actually knows exactly what the agreement was with Big Pharma other than the fact that the number 80 billion is part of it. Lots of people purport to know, none of them agree and they've all been disavowed by the the parties to the deal.
Whether the details of the deal should be known is another question, but, let's at least keep our facts straight on what we do and don't know.
August 18, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for Obama to step up and actually lead this effort. He's done his "let Congress hammer out the details" thing and uncovered the rancorous divide between the insurance industry and the electorate -- the people that elected strong majorities of Democrats in both houses in order to get health care reform done. It's going to take clear Presidential leadership to resolve this rift in favor of meaningful change. That is, 'change we can believe in.'
August 18, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, thanks to Raul, Lynn and Barbara for showing some cojones! Let's hope it carries to others, this is a critical part of getting smack done.
August 18, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we don't get any health care reform, the teabaggers win.
August 18, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It's time for president Obama and the democrats to step up and take responsibility on Health care reform or suffer the repercussion of a progressive black-lash.
August 18, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
YES!!!! As another comment mentioned, progressives are the majority of the majority. It's about time they stood the hell up.
August 18, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only the majority of the majority, but the ones whose seats are LEAST at risk. They can afford to take a stand and have no excuse not to. Let the Blue Dogs contemplate the idea of running for re-election in their 51-49 districts with zero accomplishments that they can point to and with progressive activists out for their scalps.
August 18, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Someone needs to make them understand the math. The Republicans in their districts aren't going to vote for them no matter what they do, and if they piss off the Democrats in their districts they will lose.
August 18, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The outlines are emerging of how this is going to work. Howard Dean spelled it out yesterday. Get a bill through the Senate and House. The Conference bill will have public option. And pass it through the Senate under Reconciliation if need be with 51 votes. But even Conrad's office says they will vote for cloture, even on a public option bill.
August 18, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you to progressive Democrats for standing up work working people.
August 18, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I took a look at the list of progressives who signed the letter. While most of them are in heavily Democratic districts, one is not: Eric Massa (NY 26 - PVI R+5). I say we send this guy some love (and some $$$), since unlike the rest, he is taking a real risk. Maybe some of the Blue Dogs could learn from him. (By the way, how about a new name for the Blue Dogs - how about Blue Fish).
August 18, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday, NPR brought Cokie Roberts out of the cryochamber to do the only thing she does: dispense the condensed official Village Conventional Wisdom on the politics of the standoff over the public option. Typically infuriating, she just airily dismissed the possibility that "liberals" in Congress would vote against whatever sausage the Senate "moderates" deigns to produce with a wave (yes, I actually heard her wave her hand) and a sniff. She also flat out said that the "moderates" might well not have a problem with seeing the President and his agenda fail due to their actions without even the slightest note of disapproval over the lack of party loyalty--it was just an observation of fact laced with an implicit "and that's as it should be."
August 18, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She also flat out said that the "moderates" might well not have a problem with seeing the President and his agenda fail due to their actions"
False, and self-serving advice, from Cokie.
1994 was bad because the public saw the president fail. And the "moderates" who are in red districts are the most in danger. It's sure as hell not going to be liberals in liberal district who get tossed out.
August 18, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A house divided...oh, forget it.
Why can't we pull this thing together and agree on some basic principles? The Republicans fiddle while gleefully dancing a jig as our party devours itself.
I understand it's a complicated issue but will someone please step forward (Mr. President?) with a strong list of guiding principles for health reform that are unassailable? "This is what it *must* have: A, B, C, D, etc etc"
When your own majority party isn't sure of what you want then the message has definitely become lost for the rest of the country.
August 18, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo! This whole thing with healthcare reform being held hostage by the likes of Chuck Grassley stinks!
August 18, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: It's Grasshole.
August 18, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could we win a showdown after conference? A robust reform bill leaves the House, a more emasculated bill gets through the Senate then they go to conference. Defy the trembling Blue Dogs by re-inserting a public option (and reimbursement for end-of-life counseling) in conference. This final should still get a majority in the House; it needs 51 votes to pass in the Senate. 60 votes are only needed for cloture; Snowe, Collins, Lieberman et al. do not have to vote FOR the bill, just to end debate and have a vote. So prepare a final bill that gets 51 votes in the Senate.
August 18, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not even 51; 50 (+ Biden).
August 18, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems within our grasp, although not a certainty.
Nate lays out all the nubmers. It seems we are at about 45 and will need a few more.
August 18, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing that matters -- getting to 50 in the Senate:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/how-many-votes-does-public-option-have.html
August 18, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, but move beyond the 60 and you enter into truly depressing territory. My Dem Rep has run essentially unopposed for the last few elections; it is fair to say that CA-23 is wholly safe. I phoned the local and the D.C. office and learned that Congresswoman Capps is unwilling to commit to anything. She has the rhetoric -- she is a "strong supporter" -- but won't back it up with a policy commitment. Disappointing, to say the least. If moderately liberal Dems from safe districts are so cowardly, what can we expect from the Blue Dogs?
August 18, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Nate argues, it is important to get a majority in the Senate Finance committee behind a robust public option. The Senators who need pressure to get behind it are: Wyden, Baucus, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Snowe, Carper and Conrad. They need to be reminded that they are United States senators and need to consider the national interest, not just a, sometimes tiny, state. The Democrats need to be reminded that elections have consequences: their Democratic President was decisively elected while making it clear that health care reform with a robust public option was a major plank in his program. Time for some profiles in courage!
Senate email addresses at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
August 18, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian, did you mean for "here" to be a link somewhere? My response reading that sentence is "listed where"?
August 18, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink