
Introducing his public option amendment, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) cited many of the differences between his proposal and the more robust public option offered unsuccessfully by Jay Rockefeller: No providers would be forced to take public option insurance, and the government would not be allowed to set prices. These differences are crucial, and reformers don't like them, but they do mean less government involvement and undermine the criticism of a number of conservative Senate Democrats. So let's see how they vote.
3:06 p.m.: Bill Nelson, who voted against the Rockefeller public option, says "I will vote for the Schumer amendment." Well, that clears that up.
3:16 p.m.: Kent Conrad says the fact that the Schumer amendment is an improvement over Rockefeller's because it's not tied to Medicare. But he says he worries that the House's bill will be tied to Medicare, and now he's saying he doesn't like that it's government run. He also continues to misconstrue the French health care system.
3:20 p.m.: Conrad didn't ultimately say whether he'd vote yes or no--he seems like a no, he's probably a no, but let's keep an eye out. He opposed the Rockefeller amendment on the grounds that it was tied to Medicare, but Schumer's plan is specifically not designed that way. That dramatically undercuts his argument. What will he do?
3:27 p.m.: Chuck Grassley opposes the Schumer public option on the grounds that the government might subsidize it, or enhance it, at some point in the future.
3:35 p.m.: Rapid fire Republican opposition to the Schumer amendment: Ensign, Bunning, now Kyl. Many of them trying to square their opposition to the public option with their newly discovered, fulsome support of Medicare.
3:39 p.m.: That's a new one! Jon Kyl's new argument is that insurance commissioners and existing regulations and such already exist to keep insurance companies honest. Didn't realize there wasn't a big problem to be solved her. Phew!
3:42 p.m.: Maria Cantwell, cosponsor of the Schumer amendment, defending the public option. A vote should be forthcoming.
3:43 p.m.: Baucus says he will vote no on the grounds that he doesn't think it can pass on the floor. Hmmm... Seems like he must've voted for stuff he knew couldn't pass in the past.
3:54 p.m.: The Schumer proposal failed 10-13, with Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Max Baucus (D-MT) and, by proxy, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) voting with all Republicans against the amendment. The Finance bill will not have a public option.
mcc
September 29, 2009 3:17 PM
A negotiated-rates-only public option is unacceptable to the CPC, and they've already signed a bill saying they would oppose such a plan (when Pelosi tried to move toward one as a compromise with the Blue Dogs).
However, at this point I'm thinking that such a plan passing the Finance committee would be a great thing. Just think in terms of the overton window. At the beginning of this month, the debate was between no public option and a public option. After Obama's vague "I will give people a choice" promise, the right end of the debate seemed to move such that suddenly the fight was between a public option and the various fake-public-option proposals. Then even Snowe turned out to be against co-ops, so suddenly the debate was between a public option and a triggered public option. If, somehow, the finance committee passes the Schumer amendment, we're going to be going in to the conference phase with the fight being between a public option and a negotiated-rates public option. Since even the most liberal version of the public option goes to negotiated rates after it's had a few years to get off the ground, and once you've accepted the basic idea of a public option it's really hard to argue "but we should arbitrarily handicap it for no reason", that sounds like a much easier fight to win.
Let's see if the finance committee can pull off even this minimal step in the right direction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pv2k
September 29, 2009 3:23 PM
I said it before. Conrad keeps using a statistical claim to so call guide his vote against the public option but it is bogus. Since North Dakota's population ranks 47th in the nation, you would expect Medicare reimbursement to be about 2nd from the bottom. I would venture to say North Dakota also ranks 2nd from the bottom on Medicare participants also.
Conrad is backing the insurance companies and not the people of North Dakota.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
September 29, 2009 3:24 PM
All it takes is for Conrad and Blanche to vote against it to kill it. I said in the other thread, if it's 11-11, Baucus will vote for it. If it's 10-12 when it gets to him, he'll provide cover for Conrad and Blanche.
There's 0% chance that Blanche will vote for it. Who in the hell knows where Carper's head is... just don't get him as his "yes" would put a little more pressure on Conrad. His "no" makes you feel that he'd be a problem in getting to 50+1 after Conference.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
September 29, 2009 5:06 PM in reply to tosh
Think I nailed that one. Blanche never was going to vote for it. Conrad is locked in his Co-Op Love. If they voted against it, Baucus would provide cover for Conrad. He never was going to provide cover for just Blanche to kill it, so Conrad is the real decider there.
The take away, though, is largely positive. Carper and Florida Nelson are now on record voting for a PO. Even though it's a more watered down version of the PO, it does pretty well indicate that if they were faced with a bill coming out of Conference with a PO that they would vote for it. It's also quite possible that they would both vote for one that contained the HELP PO if that's what came out of the merger of the two bills. This gets us a lot closer to 50+1 for a Senate bill that has a PO heading into Conference.
I think once they cross the Rubicon of a PO heading into conference, it's going to be very hard to put it back in the bottle due to the cost savings issue. And the numbers are starting to look better *unless* some of the caucus joins the GOP to filabuster it in the Senate.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ignoreland
September 29, 2009 3:25 PM
Funny, the story in my paper called Schumer the liberal in this battle. Guess that political center is off-kilter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ripper McCord
September 29, 2009 3:48 PM
Kyle spewed the same debunked Lewin Group notion that public option would siphon market share from privates insurers. And then Cornyn follows up with Kyle on how well state insurance commissioners are doing regulating those private insurers. Hmmm. Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
September 29, 2009 3:50 PM
Baucus says he will vote no on the grounds that he doesn't think it can pass on the floor. Hmmm...
On top of being inexplicable and asinine (all the right-wing problem voters are in the room! If the bill can pass this committee it can pass on the floor!) ... well geez that seems to kill it. (Unless somehow Baucus is the sole non-Arkansas Democrat standing against the public option in the end... which would be pretty funny but doesn't sound likely.)
I guess the question now is, can Rockefeller/Schumer be the induced to vote against the public-option-less bill being passed out of committee? Have they made any gestures in that direction at all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
September 29, 2009 3:55 PM
Imagine a SFC chaired by a Republican. Would he or she vote EVER vote against a Republican amendment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jeppy
September 29, 2009 4:18 PM
Oh my god, they killed the public option!
YOU BASTARDS!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traunch
September 29, 2009 4:34 PM
gavel....
we now have the vote count; and the ayes..errrr ahh...the Whores have it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?