TPMDC

Senate Health Care Leaders To Brief Caucus On Shape Of Reform Bill

Brian Beutler | October 15, 2009, 9:56AM

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV); Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel; Senator Max Baucus (D-MT); Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)

Read More

Chris Dodd, Democrats, Harry Reid, Health Care, Kathleen Sebelius, Max Baucus, Peter Orszag, Public Option, Rahm Emanuel, Senate

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

Yesterday's hour-long health care meeting between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Max Baucus (D-MT), and a number of White House principles didn't yield too many noteworthy public developments. But what went on behind closed doors will be the focus of a Democratic caucus meeting today, where health care leaders will brief their colleagues on the early stages of negotiations as they merge two competing pieces of health care legislation.

At the meeting, Democrats will be given a chance to air their concerns, though none is expected to draw a line in the sand over any issue. One of the key questions the caucus faces is whether to heed the will of the party's majority and include a public option in the overall Senate bill, or to defer to the concerns of the party's conservatives, a few of whom join the Republican minority in opposing the idea of creating a government insurance plan.

On hand yesterday from the White House were Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Legislative Adviser Phil Schiliro, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and OMB Director Peter Orszag.

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

Get It Done: Reid Threatens Weekend Session If GOP Filibusters Just-Completed Jobs Bill

No Regrets: Cosponsor Of GOP Budget Gives His Leaders A Pass--Despite Their Unwillingness To Support It

Democrats: We're Excited To Debate GOP Shadow Budget...Why Aren't Republicans?

Is Ryan's Social Security Slashing Budget Like Contract With America?

Join the Conversation!

39 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

October 15, 2009 9:58 AM

Let me fix this for you:

One of the key questions the caucus faces is whether to heed the will of the party's majority and include a public option in the overall Senate bill, or to defer to the concerns of the insurance industry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:00 AM in reply to Indie Pro

Beat me to the punch. This has NOTHING to do with conservatism. If you were a true conservative you would be for a PO because of the amount of money it saves and puts towards ACTUAL HEALTH CARE.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:13 AM in reply to theone718

absolutely, absolutely

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to theone718

Actually, true conservatism (the Teddy Roosevelt kind) would be fighting tooth and nail to preserve the health of the American people and protecting their financial wellbeing from rapacious corporate plundering. There are no real conservatives anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 12:00 PM in reply to Schmed

Of course, Teddy Roosevelt considered himself a progressive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 12:00 PM in reply to Schmed

Teddy Roosevelt kind?

People laughed at McCain for calling Teddy a conservative.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 12:55 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I rest my case.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 1:02 PM in reply to Schmed

How do you see Teddy Roosevelt as a conservative?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro

In the true, traditional sense of the word: a conservative wants to conserve the beneficial elements of a society so that it will continue to thrive and develop. A conservative husbands resources judiciously so that future generations will have them rather than exploit them in a spree of consumption and profligacy. A true conservative creates programs that enable a culture to prosper and its citizens to advance while protecting the environment so that the land remains vibrant and fecund. Roosevelt, an avid outdoorsman, was dismayed by the rape of the land caused by industrialization and the squalor of the people trapped in cities and factory lives. Among other policies, his creation of national monuments and parks were part of his efforts to stave off the complete ruination of both the land and the people.

Can you imagine John Muir wanting to go camping with Orrin Hatch or Lindsey Graham? John McCain is just a 20th century reincarnation of Ralph Henry Cameron, the rapist of the Grand Canyon. I can't think of one present day Republican who embodies the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt. A real conservative is NOT a 21st century Republican.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Also, see The Death of Conservatism:

The first great 20th-century Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, supported a strong central government that emphasized the shared values and ideals of the nation's millions of citizens. He denounced the harm done by "the trusts"—big corporations. He made it his mission to conserve vast tracts of wilderness and forest. The last successful one, Ronald Reagan, liked to remind people (especially the press) he was a lifelong New Dealer who voted four times for Franklin D. Roosevelt. The consensus forged by Buckley in the 1960s gained strength through two decisive acts: first, Buckley denounced right-wing extremists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, and made sure when he did it to secure the support of conservative Republicans like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sen. John Tower. This pulled the movement toward the center. Second: Buckley saw that the civil disturbances of the late 1960s (in particular urban riots and increasingly militant anti-Vietnam protests) posed a challenge to social harmonies preferred by genuine conservatives and genuine liberals alike. When the Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan called on liberals to join with conservatives in upholding "the politics of stability," Buckley replied that he was ready to help. He placed the values of "civil society" (in Burke's term) above those of his own movement or the GOP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to Schmed

ah, you wish to redefine what conservatives are? Okay.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 3:51 PM in reply to Indie Pro

If only to give (back to) the term some intellectual honesty.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Docb

October 15, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to Indie Pro

None of these are 'leaders' with the possible exception of Dodd...They are shameless panderers to the lobbyists of the HC Corporations!

I would relish having the opposition being filmed on C-SPAN and other outlets opposing -on camera- what the American people have overwhelmingly said they want and need!

Perfect news footage to get rid of them in 2010 and beyond...Loop it for all to see..

Shameless that it won't even kick in till 2013 -giving the Insurance Companies 2 and one half years to pad their coffers!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Docb

October 15, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to Indie Pro

It is not the will of the majority in Congress--they work for us! ---IT IS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NEEDS TO BE SERVED!

Call the fools and remind them who they work for...1.800.828.0498 or 1.877.264.4226

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 10:42 AM

Please call your senators. Let them know you want a public option in the Senate bill. This is a critical moment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to wbgonne

I've contacted Feinstein before, but I think I will give her office a call today, too.

This is ESPECIALLY important for Californians and those from Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, etc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:00 AM

So here we have a small cabal of Democratic Senators, behind closed doors, negotiating a plan affecting a huge swath of the American economy, not to mention the power of life and death.
Tsk.
I look forward to the day when a small cabal of Republicans negotiate on whether to require some payment of income taxes, to vote. Thanks for the closed doors precedent.
Keep up the good work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to shooter242

Really liking that taco, ay Shooter? Would you like seconds? There'll be a fresh platter along next year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

October 15, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to shooter242

You know, if you guys would stop with the constant umbrage at shit that you used to do yourselves when you ran the place and that, indeed, you did becauses it's a normal part of the process, it would be a start on gettin enough credibility back to take the place back so you can do it yourselves again.

This is how Congress works at this stage in the life of a bill over which multiple committees have jurisdiction. It's how it worked under Frist and the bugman, it's how it worked under Tip O'Neil and Howard Baker, it's how it worked under Johnson and McCormick and it's how it has frakking worked since before the damn Civil War.

One of the things that turned the country against your party was the constant rank hypocricy. "Ooohhh, we hate deficits except when we run them up by repealing PAYGO and cutting taxes for rich people. Oooohhh, we hate big government programs execpt when we pass them. Oooohhhhh, we hate government intrusion into the private affairs of individuals and into areas of the law that the Constitution assigns to the states except when we think we can score some cheap political points by interferring in a specific family's tragic end-of-life dispute. Oooohhhh, we are for vigorous Congressional oversight of the Executive branch except for when we control the Executive. Ooooohhhh, the horror of intrusive federal investigations except when their of brown people."

You guys got pasted in 2006 and 2008 because your party's leaders arrogantly shoved their complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy into the voters' faces and they finally had enough. The GOP hasn't had a remotely fresh idea since 1987 and hasn't had a principle other than antipathy for non-whites it wouldn't compromise to grab a few campaign dollars or a few votes since before that.

So why don't you go find some principles you won't whore away for the change under my sofa's cushions first chance you get and then come back and bitch about that, kay?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to shooter242

AND a ReThuglican, the embodiment of "bipartisanship." Don't forget her.

Harry Reid has just given ReThuglican's 1/4 of the say on this bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:01 AM

Not only do a quarter of Repubs, and a vast majority of independants support a PO, 90 PERCENT OF DEMOCRATS DO. This is ridiculous, if these guys don't folow the will of the people I am done with them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:32 AM

I've read a different number of Repubs supporting a po: around 50%. Think I read that here!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JoeTheMechanic

October 15, 2009 11:37 AM

As I read the tea leaves, the Democratic "leadership" does not think they have 60 votes for cloture. I'm guessing that Lieberman has threatened to join a Republican fillibuster. Bill Nelson and Blanche Lincoln may also be threatening to vote against cloture.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to JoeTheMechanic

I say let 'em fillibuster. Take names and start kicking asses: let the public know who's in the insurance industry's pocket (Lieberman's an obvious shill for CIGNA, Aetna, and other CT based cos.) and why they aren't looking out for OUR interests.

BTW, if Lieberputz goes for the fillibuster and retains his chair, the Dem leadership will have zero credibility.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to Schmed

Remember COBRA? That provides for extending your employer-provided health care after they "let you go"? The BR stands for "Budget Reconciliation".

Let them filibuster and look bad to their constituents. Then pass the darned public option with Budget Reconciliation.

GROW a PAIR, HARRY!!!

Or get out of the way, and let Chuck do it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:45 AM

Might as well hang for a horse as for a mule. The progressives should insist on a strong public option or they don't vote for cloture. This bill is a big Christmas present to private industry without it. If it means no reform, we're only back where we started: pushing for single payer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:47 AM

The correct view is 51 votes and all they need to do hold on a procedural vote! If they can't hold the vote on a procedure to let the bill reach the Senate floor...then Reid should resign and all dems who vote against it be damned and primaried out of the fucking Senate! if they cave to Snow, Rahm or corporate dems, fuck em!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:51 AM

On Health care, like many other issues, much of the country is pretty much on the left of the Senate and the White House. A few powerful corporate elites determine the fate of the most important legislations, and that's the way our governments always work.

I think White House and the Senate Dems were never keen on the PO, in fact, I would go ahead and say many of them were outwardly or implicitly fully against a PO.

While it made sense to keep the cards close to chest till the Bill left the Baucus committee, this seems like a perfect time for the President to rally the troops for a PO. Not doing so, only suggest he ain't a big fan of PO either.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to kash79

Not doing so, only suggest he ain't a big fan of PO either.

So, whose side is he on (with all that Change and Hope)?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to Schmed

I'm not an historian, but BO looks more "Clintonian" than FDRsque...Anyways, our politics and our leaders reflect us.

While much of the right is dangerously irrational and undereducated, left is all postmodern. In a country so divided, so commodified and a victim of late-capitalism even the election of BO is a refreshing surprise. I say it both a sense of irony and relief.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 12:10 PM in reply to Schmed

We'll finally be able to see that when the bills are merged.

Will they strengthen the mandates, as the Insurance industry is demanding.

or

Will they bring a good strong Public Option as the people are demanding.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I think they have to do both. If they weaken the mandates, that drives up costs by shrinking the pool. People will sign up for insurance when they get sick. If they don't create a public option ('a' public option, and not some regional triggered co-ops that are contracted out to private corporations - health insurance companies - to manage and run), private companies will have no competition...and prices will rise. They should allow companies to compete across state lines, to offer national policies (bigger pools). And the main benefit of the public option will be to demonstrate that government can do this kind of thing and do it well and for less money than private insurers. It won't save that much, by some estimates, but a satisfied customer base will take some of the fear that people have about a government plan away. And, perhaps, that will open the door to a mature public dialogue of single payer or single payer/private hybrid (as in Holland and Germany) down the road.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to Tanjaoui

I don't favor selling across state lines unless regulatory power is removed from the states. Otherwise, every health insurance company in the country will move to the state with the weakest regulation. (I'm looking at you, Delaware.)

An independent federal regulatory body must be in any bill that allows cross-state sales of health insurance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

October 15, 2009 2:02 PM in reply to Indie Pro

in this nation's history money has always won. I've seen nothing to indicate it will be any different here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 15, 2009 11:56 AM

Exactly! We'll help to crush every one of them starting with the impotent Harry Reid! All this coward has to do is put the public option in the bill. It would then take 60 to remove it from the bill which they'd never get! I'm going to keep calling and emailing, letting them know that we'll donate to anyone running against a Dem who doesn't vote for the public option. Actually, it's already too late for the blue dogs who have already shown their willingness to be bought. Whether we get a public option or not, their asses are already gone!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

October 15, 2009 1:21 PM

Are any of you people aware that the Senate isn't the whole Congress? Let's just get a damn bill into conference and let Nancy beat them down.

From a strategic standpoint, I either want a strong public option in this bill or some very weak substitute (triggered or coops for example) because I think the conference report games out thusly:

Strong PO in Senate vs. Strong PO in House = strong PO in conference report.

Weak PO in Senate vs. Strong PO in House = medium (negotiated rates or opt out) to Strong PO in conference report.

Medium PO in Senate vs. Strong PO in House = the exact PO in the Senate bill.

No PO in Senate vs. Strong PO in House = No PO or weak PO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

michael buretta

October 15, 2009 2:18 PM

If the Senate is merging bills from both the health and finance committees then where is Senator Harkins seat at the table?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

michael buretta

October 15, 2009 2:30 PM

The comments about a conference report are spot on! We have a bicameral system and the house or senate don`t dictate what happens its what comes out of the conference. For once the House can say they demand the public option is in and it will be in if a bill is to pass..Dems are in the majority and if we cant get somthing through with the majorities we have now then maybe its time to elect greens instead. This is the last chance for Dems to man up and get the backbone ( no offence to the ladies actualy some of them have been the ones with the biggest backbones)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

michael buretta

October 15, 2009 2:43 PM

As to a filabuster yea! wouldnt it be grand to make those that would oppose going forward have to get up on the senate floor and read the sears catalog just to proceduraly delay and thwart progress..let em bring in the rollaways i say!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Follow us!

Most Popular

Viewed
Rec'd
Commented
On Digg

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

TPM Top News

Tried And True?
Is The GOP's Social-Security-Slashing 'Shadow Budget' A New Contract With America?

DADT Repeal Advocate Lt. Dan Choi Rejoins Unit

Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama

Hoyer Thinks GOP Should Debate 'Shadow Budget'