TPMDC
Hill Source: 'Lot Of Undecided Members'
Christina Bellantoni | October 23, 2009, 12:30PM
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
As we've been reporting today, House Democrats held a private caucus meeting on health care and the various public option possibilities for a final version of their bill.
A Democratic leadership source tells TPMDC that leaders read out the names of the entire caucus this morning to get Democrats on record with their positions. Members were asked if they support a "robust" public option.
"There are a lot of undecided members," the source said.
Reports that any counts of House Democrats are firm or weak aren't accurate, the leadership aide said.
"We're still working on getting there," the source added. "At the end of the day, we will have a public option, the question is what it will look like."
There's been some scuttlebutt today about whether progressives promised Speaker Nancy Pelosi more than the votes they could deliver on the most aggressive public option. Our leadership source says no, and believes progressives "did a great job of coalescing the caucus."
TPMDC has more detail here.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
-
Lincoln 42%, Halter 26%
-
Lincoln (D) 42%, Baker (R) 41%
-
Baker (R) 42%, Halter (D) 34%
-
Lincoln (D) 44%, Coleman (R) 39%
-
Coleman (R) 40%, Halter (D) 35%
Most Popular
- To 'Teabag' Or Not? That's Still The Question For Conservatives
- Dubai, Dubankrupt: A Look Back At Wealthier Times
- Senate GOPers: It's Al Franken's Fault We're Being Attacked For Votes Against Anti-Rape Amendment
- Local Reporter Had Gun In Trunk At West Point Before Obama's Speech
- Tales From Down Under: Is Radicalized Right Good News For Progressive P.M. Rudd?
- New Orly Taitz Filing (In Dismissed Case): I Get Death Threats Daily
- Hatch Doesn't Know Why Dems Are 'So Doggone Stupid'
- Drug-Makers Paying Off Competitors To Keep Cheap Generics Off Market
- Worshipping Reagan: There's An App For That
- The Hacked Climate Change Emails: What They Do And Don't Show
- Obama Lays Out 'Way Forward' In Afghanistan
- Playing Hard to Get: Maine's Senators Suddenly Back in Play on HCR?
- Afghanistan: Is It Not Possible Obama Is Right?
- Taliban = al Qaeda? Let's call the whole thing off?
- Chris Matthews: Dick Cheney Is A 'Troll'
- Dems To GOP: Obstruct Health Care Debate, And We'll Be Here 'Til Christmas
- Commander-in-What?
- Chuck Grassley: 'I've Lived Off The Public Tit All These Years'
- Party Crashers Release Emails: We Thought We Were Invited! We Swear!
- Dobbs: 'Who The Hell Does This President Think He Is?'
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 12:37 PM
Offers a modicum of protection to people left out of subsidies (or with insufficient subsidies), reduces the deficit (according to Pelosi's citation of the prelim CBO), reduces cost of the bill overall, keeps the insurance companies honest, can lower the cost of premiums
I can't see why Democrats are reluctant to vote for it.
You know, I've heard talk that what Reid is trying to do is put an opt out in the bill, with the intention it gets stipped once it makes it to the floor, so they can say, see we tried. I hope that is not what we are seeing here.
Let's face it. This is a no brainer. Even by Conservative standards, the PO is the correct move.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
October 23, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to Indie Pro
There's really no "stripping" in the Senate bill. Unless reports are completely wrong, the Senate bill will require "unanimous consent" for any amendment, meaning 60 aye votes.
With very few exceptions (and certainly not on anything controversial), what's introduced by Reid will be what passes the Senate.
So, a Senate "Schumer with opt-outs" will be merged with a House "Rocky" to get "Rocky with opt-outs" or "Schumer", probably based solely on White House preference.
I'll reiterate that opt-outs will keep a hugely popular initiative, which cannot be supported by any Republican on any level, alive in state-level elections. Opt-outs will be a boon for 2010 progressive turnout, even moreso than a full Rocky PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 1:06 PM in reply to Miles
There is stripping, by your own comment. Reid could be whipping those 60, and that's the hold up. Being as this isn't an open process, who's to say.
Here's one place mentioning it:
Reid may not have the votes to move a national opt out off of the floor; he is introducing a national opt-out with the understanding that it would become a state-based ‘trigger’ when the Senate formally takes up the measure. The maneuver is meant to satisfy progressives — Congress tried — but the final bill will include a mechanism that triggers a state-based public option if a certain affordability threshold is not satisfied (if 5% of the state population does not have access to at least two “affordable” options, for instance). The policy will then be presented as ‘the best deal we could get’ and embraced by both Reid and the White House.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/23/reid-public-plan/
So I'm not the only one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
October 23, 2009 1:28 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I guess I don't see where 60 votes AGAINST Schumer-with-opt-outs come from. I'll also don't see where 60 votes FOR Carper come from.
What I'm saying is that what Reid introduces won't have 60 actionable votes, and thus that will be what passes the Senate. If Reid doesn't think he has 60 cloture votes for Schumer-with-opt-outs, he'll introduce Carper.
However, it's the definition of cowardice to not force Nelson to filibuster--and he doesn't seem to want to filibuster, or he'd say it right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 23, 2009 12:40 PM
I can't see why Democrats are reluctant to vote for it
Maybe because of this: keeps the insurance companies honest
I would imagine that if they can't get support in the House for a "robust" public option, it's going nowhere in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 23, 2009 12:54 PM
Saying you're undecided this late is the game is silliness. These folks don't want to make any decisions for themselves - they want to wait to see where the majority is going and then go with the flow. Either than or they're trying to get more bribe money from lobbyists before selling their vote against the reform.
Undecided my ass. Anybody who is undecided today should be primaried out regardless of how they eventually vote because this is the major issue of the moment and they're obviously not giving it enough thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
October 23, 2009 1:00 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Cosign.
Talk about dithering. When will they decide 2020?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 23, 2009 1:00 PM
Believe you me, the air is thick with cell phone calls from health industry lobbyists to members or their chiefs of staff to threaten, cajole, bribe to get 'undecideds' to vote their way.
It's not that they haven't given it enough thought, they're 'testing the market'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 23, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to trblmkr
I got yer 'undecided member' right ovah here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
October 23, 2009 1:05 PM
undecided member = shiftless dicks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
October 23, 2009 1:09 PM
name them
as has been reported, Medi+5 vs Negot. Rates is a $1400/yr differnce for millions of struggling American families - we all have a right to know just who these pick pockets are
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 23, 2009 1:15 PM
From Kos:
Call away, folks!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmull
October 23, 2009 1:22 PM
There weren't 50-60 undecided Democrats before Obama decided to screw his own party by leaking that he prefers a trigger. What is a Democratic congressman supposed to think? This President is a disaster. One-termer for sure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 23, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to bmull
Right. Total disaster who is baffled by the concept of leadership. What a moron. Why wait for the election? Let's impeach this catastrophe NOW.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 23, 2009 1:43 PM
All I can say is, if they can't get a public option done there better damn well be no individual mandate either. It's beyond me how so many supposedly shrewd politicians can't understand the potential political disaster presented by mandates sans public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
October 23, 2009 1:55 PM
Why did I ever support the Democratic Party? This is ridiculous. Not a dime for the party, only for progressive Dems.
Agreed on this:
"if they can't get a public option done there better damn well be no individual mandate either"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
October 23, 2009 2:12 PM
I got all my stuff through without no supermajority. Then again, I got cajones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
October 23, 2009 2:16 PM
i'm sorry, but instead of asking for their votes, Pelosi should be asking them what it will take to get their votes. Seriously. Is that so much to ask? There are 218 Democrats that support the public option. We have to find the ones that do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obama1st
October 23, 2009 4:35 PM
Rep. Heath Shuler whose number is: 202-225-6401, pls call and hound this blue dog from hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?