TPMDC

Health Care Pulling Democrats On Left And Right, With Obama In The Middle

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!


United States Capitol

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the power player right now, negotiating a careful merger between two bills with a goal of reaching 60 votes in his chamber. But the two other major players - the White House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House are left in a bit of a holding pattern.

Top White House staffers are helping with the merger, but sources tell TPMDC it's a more hands-off approach (for now) as Reid (D-NV) builds something that his caucus will fully support. Meanwhile, Pelosi (D-CA) is presenting the "robust" public option as the more fiscally responsible choice in hopes of pushing the conservative Blue Dogs closer to support it.

Pelosi is working hard to hit the 218 votes needed for passage by bringing together the most divergent factions in her caucus.

President Obama, for his part, urged Democrats last night to consider unity over the perfect bill, highlighting good things in "the bill you least like."

Progressive Democrats learning of the president's comments this morning were baffled since there seems to be growing support for the public option and the Congressional Budget Office is expected to score the bill with that included as less costly than originally anticipated.

Obama didn't specify if he was trying to tamp down critics who want a public option or if perhaps he was aiming at the smaller number of liberals who want a single-payer (but politically unfeasible) health care system.

Several progressive Democrats we chatted with offered a reminder - the public option was Obama's idea to begin with since he first proposed it on the campaign trail.

The progressives are still frustrated with Obama because unlike the Blue Dogs, they did not get an invitation to the White House during the health care negotiations.

"Progressives are excited that the Speaker is leaning toward the robust public option and are convinced it is best way to achieve their goals for reform," a Democratic source told TPMDC.

As for Pelosi's move, "It's yet to be seen if it was smart. If the blue dogs vote for it, then yeah, it will be brilliant," another Democratic source familiar with the health care process told TPMDC.

"Pelosi is presenting the reality that a public option saves money. If they don't want a public option, they've got to deal with the fact the costs are going to be higher," the source said.

Blue Dog Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) told his local paper he can't support the health care bill:

"I think these bills missed a critical opportunity for the country. ... Whatever we do has to address the rising costs. None of these plans do that very effectively," he said. "It would be great if the president would take some leadership. I don't think he's done that."

The Blue Dogs are already in a tough political spot on energy legislation and members from conservative districts don't want to have to take another vote that could be held against them in 2010.

Comments (25) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

October 21, 2009 1:48 PM   

Obama didn't specify if he was trying to tamp down critics who want a public option or if perhaps he was aiming at the smaller number of liberals who want a single-payer (but politically unfeasible) health care system.

From the official Whitehouse transcript, I'd say both:

Now, there are still some details and some disagreements that have to be worked out.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Single payer!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Public option!

THE PRESIDENT: Let me say this, because somebody just brought up something. (Laughter.) Among Democrats and progressives there are a whole set of views about how we should do health care. But understand that the bill you least like in Congress right now, the one you least like of the five that are out there would provide 29 million Americans health care -- 29 million Americans who don't have it right now would get it. The bill you least like would prevent insurance companies from barring you from getting health insurance because of preexisting conditions. (Applause.) Whatever the bill you least like would set up an exchange so that people right now who are having to try to bargain for health insurance on their own are suddenly part of a pool of millions that forces insurance companies to compete for their business and give them better deals and lower rates. (Applause.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 2:28 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

In all fairness, I think what he's saying is,

"...even the least is better than what we have today. Don't torpedo HCR just because the bill you least like, winds up coming out of conference."

That's MY read on that. Just IMO.

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, I couldn't disagree more. Mandates with no strong PO and inadequate subsidies is HORRIBLE policy. And has a large potential to having to be scraped by Congress later due to public backlash.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 2:41 PM    in reply to willia451

my point being, like many here claim, if he's so for the PO, why not say, "Yes! and we need a strong PO!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:35 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Well, one model that conforms to the observed facts would be that he's more interested in getting it done than in soothing the jitters of the progressives on the internet and he thinks drawing a very public line in the sand forces some people in the Senate and the House to take equally public positions now that they can't easily walk back later.

That's what I've meant when I used my unnecessarily caustic "tending to our emotional needs" language that we had a few words about this one time that I barely remember. That's how he ran his campaign. Repeatedly, he showed that he's not going to engage in public gestures calculated solely to sooth the latest base freakout (or private gestures to sooth big donor freakouts, for that matter) if he thinks it would be detrimental to his ability to achieve the ultimate goal they're freaking out about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:42 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I respect your position. I hope you are right. We'll see what comes out of the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:49 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Yeah. I hope I'm right too. And for once, not just because I hate being wrong.

FWIW, Steve Benen's take yesterday was along similar lines.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020531.php

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:57 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

that's an interesting take. Thanks for the link.

Of course, the writer glossed over the fact that usually Obama hedges and says, but he's open to other ideas, and the PO isn't a game changer for him.

He also forgets that as the leader of the party, the party in control of congress he has links to the purse strings of the Dem Committee, as well as, since I assume these Senators have bills tehy'd like to pass, leverage as well.

But okay. We'll see.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 4:05 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

The problem with your rationale is that Obama is no longer a candidate. He's the President. He needs to lead. That means taking a clear position, even if it is a risky one. That's what leaders do.

No more wishy-washy hedging your bets, so you can claim victory no matter what ends up happening. Grow a pair and take a stand, one way or the other.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 7:02 PM    in reply to jdb316

His job is to get the bill passed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 4:02 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

All I can offer is this:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/09/obama.plan.pdf

Its the plan he sent to Congress immediately before his joint session address.

It DOES contain a PO. But no specifics on construction (what it would look like).

So it is what it is.

I don't know why he won't say "We need a strong PO". Do you? I mean, I can speculate. I can say I don't like it (which I don't by the way). But that's not like "knowing" why. Is it?

All I know is the fight is in Congress right now. And I'm moving toward the sound of the guns.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 2:46 PM    in reply to willia451

I completely agree with you both on

1) what he's saying (which I'd like to believe, and in fact used to believe that any reform was better than nothing,

and most importantly:

2) "Mandates with no strong PO and inadequate subsidies" has "a large potential to having to be scraped by Congress later due to public backlash."

That public backlash is going to be poisonous for our side.

We need a strong public option if we want to succeed in 2010 and 2012.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:22 PM    in reply to again

Shorter version of your Crystal Ball (I support a robust PO)

Do nothing
Leave 29 million Americans to the whim of insurance companies plus NO insurance exchanges etc and "we succeed in 2010, 2012)


Dog no hunt

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 2:28 PM   

"Progressive Democrats learning of the president's comments this morning were baffled since there seems to be growing support for the public option and the Congressional Budget Office is expected to score the bill with that included as less costly than originally anticipated."

They were baffled because they didn't understand the deal Obama struck with health insurers NOT to pursue the public option in return for insurance lobbyists not to fight health care reform like they did under Clinton.

Unfortunately, as we found out Oct. 12, the insurance industry didn't hold to their word when they saw that the populace/polis (and 75% of physicians) demanded the public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:14 PM    in reply to again

There never was such a deal

Things are SO much easier when you can make shit up

Don't take my word for it

Tune in Glenn Beck

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:00 PM   

All they have to do is follow the will of the people.

As Monday's ABC/WP poll showed:

** Americans support a public option by a clear 57 to 40 percent majority.

** Americans prefer a health care reform plan with a public option that only receives Democratic votes to a plan without a public option that receives bipartisan support by a 51 percent to 37 margin.

** And Americans oppose the Senate Finance Bill's tax on high-cost insurance plans by a 61 percent to 35 percent margin.

Do what the American people want -- ignore the Baucus boondoggle and pass a strong plan with a robust public option based on the Senate HELP or House bills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:12 PM    in reply to Moose49

Do what the American people want -- ignore the Baucus boondoggle and pass a strong plan with a robust public option based on the Senate HELP or House bills.

Pelosi's trying to get 218 votes for the "robust" option...far from certain she'll suceed

Demonstrably LESS certain, the claim that a robust option is "what the American People want"

Two more polls....


CNN

Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you
favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government
that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?
61% Favor, 38% Oppose
(IF FAVOR) Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? -- results combined with previous question:
40% Favor bill only if includes public option
18% Favor bill even if did not include public option
3% Favor public option, unsure on bill
38% Oppose public option

Gallup

If Congress passes a healthcare bill, do you think it should or should not include a public, government-run insurance plan to compete with plans offered by private insurance companies? 50% Yes, should include 46% No, should not

Yes difference in wording...which is exactly my point

It's not "what the American people want" that matters (even if there were some way of knowing what that is), the name of the game is getting something that will pass Congress

Just saying

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:43 PM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

Seems to me that a majority (even if small in some cases) supports the public option no matter how the question is asked. And, yes, the name of the game is getting something that will pass Congress. What I'm saying is I hope members of Congress will listen to the American people rather than to AHIP's lobbyists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:17 PM   

As for Jim Marshall...

He's against Medicare and Medicaid AND employer provided insurance


Don't think he's worth a mention

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:26 PM   

The plan is working perfectly. Obama appears to be exactly where he wants to be, in the middle. Unfortunately, the plan is taking way, way too long to implement, but it is working.

Now, just freaking get on with it and move on to other pressing issues.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:35 PM    in reply to Michael A

In the middle and ostensibly doing nothing. I'd appreciate some visible, public leadership right about now instead of "Going Quiet In Health Care Public Debate"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:52 PM    in reply to Schmed

I agree with you!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 4:08 PM    in reply to Schmed

Well, I respect the opinion. I have always been one that believes in actions speak louder than words. He is very smart and playing his cards the way that he thinks they have to be played. If he thought that it would be beneficial and helpful to be more vocal, guaranteed he would do it. At this point, he obviously believes that pushing through house and senate leadership and surrogates is the way to go in this political landscape. Right or wrong, that is the way he is pushing. I have repeatedly doubted him over the last two years and he constantly proved me wrong. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 4:19 PM    in reply to Michael A

Yesterday, I found myself actually agreeing with James Carville (my wife wants me to make an appointment with my shrink a.s.a.p.!) when he said that "of course [Obama] is breaking a campaign promise! [to clean up DC] That's what politicians do!"

I know, I know: consider the source. But every now and then, even a kazoo hits the right note. It's still early, but with every passing day and its accompanying calculated "chess" move, I'm feeling less and less sanguine about the leadership demonstrated by President Obama so far.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 4:33 PM    in reply to Schmed

I like Carville, but he is a very crass political operative. His opinions are skewed by the rovian/carville type of politics. Clintonion triangulation and political power at any costs for Carville.

I am probably naive but I just can't bring myself to see Obama in that same mold. I have to keep telling myself that he is a politician, but I truly believe that he wants to get things done for the good of the country more than just remaining in power. He has said as much that if he is a one-termer and gets things done, then so be it.

I want him to clean up washington, big time. I am thinking that he is holding off until he gets healthcare done and then he takes on the monied interests and lobbyists in washington. If he was doing that already, it would make healthcare reform ten times more difficult and, in fact, probably impossible.

I guess we shall see.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 21, 2009 3:28 PM   

This is ridiculous.

Focus on this Mr President, Senator Reid:

NO MANDATE WITHOUT A TRUE PUBLIC OPTION THAT CUTS COSTS AND IS AVAILABLE TO ALL AMERICANS.

Senator Reid please make sure that you're precious 'caucus' realizes this point.

I think the people are quite well unified considering that there has been so little leadership in DC supporting their real interests.

Without the true public option, you know where you can shove your mandate!

So come on Mr. President, come on senators, congressman... get unified with the American people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on