TPMDC

As Leaders Try To Pass Health Care Reform By Year's End, The Nearest Obstacles Are In Their Own Party

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

With less than two months to go until Congress breaks for the holidays, the White House and Senate leaders are huddling to figure out how to pass a bill before the end of the year. As part of their push, both camps are meeting with conservative Democrats--most notably Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)--whose unanimous support is absolutely required simply to bring the bill to the floor. But leading Democrats are unlikely to make any progress until these swing-vote senators see the bill Majority Leader Harry Reid put together, along with a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. They say that's necessary before they make any decisions on even the earliest procedural votes, and there's no clear indication as to when the CBO will weigh in.

Last night, Reid met with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and others to discuss, among other things, how far they've come in convincing caucus conservatives to support the bill's public option. "That's one of many subjects, that wasn't the main subject," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Along the same lines, Reid spokesman Jim Manley suggests that this is part and parcel of an effort to move legislation sooner rather than later. They met, he said, to "discuss ways to try and get a bill done by the end of the year."

But with conservative Democrats cold to the public option, and withholding their commitments to allow the bill to be debated on the floor, the White House and Democratic leaders have a lot of work ahead of them and they'll likely have to work in tandem. On that score, this week, Lincoln--perhaps the most electorally vulnerable of all moderate Democrats--met with both Reid and President Obama to discuss the Senate bill.

The official line from the White House is that the meetings have been productive. "Senator Lincoln is playing a very constructive role, she's working through issues that are of serious concern to her as all the members are, she's paying very close attention to making a serious contribution to this discussion, these issues are getting worked through in the Senate," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass.

On the other side of their efforts, though, are the moderates themselves, who remain in constant contact with each other about health care reform, and are constantly reviewing their options. Just yesterday, Lincoln met with Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman and others to keep apprised of the latest news in the hope of influencing the bill in a more conservative direction.

Nelson didn't go so far as to suggest that he's part of an emerging voting bloc, but he says he and like-minded Democrats partake in regular discussions to keep abreast of the latest developments, looking for new levers of influence. "There may be some developments," he said, "we don't know, for example what is going to come back from CBO--and one of the best things I've found is to keep talking to one another because somebody may hear something and it might be informative."

And what are their goals? "The trigger's always being discussed whenever we get together because the trigger's associated with Senator Snowe and so there is a lot of discussion about, if you did do a trigger, what would it look like?"

But even if the bill does get to the floor, we may see this dynamic repeat itself. "If and when there aren't 60 votes for shut of debate at some point," Nelson said, "that's when I think negotiations begin in earnest."

Last week, Joe Lieberman announced that he'd ultimately oppose--and even filibuster--any health care bill that includes a public option. It was a bombshell announcement. But though reporters have spilled gallons of ink covering his defection, leadership's most immediate concern is rounding up the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to the floor in the first place. Lieberman has suggested he's willing to support the motion to proceed to debate, but Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, and others are still holding out, and unlike Lieberman, their concerns are have at least something to do with electoral politics, and the conservative constituents that they represent.

Join the Conversation!

35 comments

Recommend Recommend (1)

November 5, 2009 2:39 PM   

Dear Sen. Lincoln: If you think hitching your wagon to the Limbaugh party will help you get re-elected, you couldn't be more wrong. They'll come after you with everything they've got no matter how you vote on this. You're far better off casting your lot with the Democrats. By November 2010 the lies and distortions will be forgotten an health care reform will be seen as a large plus for anyone who voted for it and a big problem for anyone who was opposed. Don't triangulate yourself out of a job.

Sen. Landrieu and Nelson: Ditto. You don't have to worry about next year, but if you screw this up you're eventually going to answer the question of why.

Sen. Lieberman: You insufferable bastard. Everybody's sick and tired of your preening. STFU and vote for this or you're going to be lucky to be chairman of the spittoon-emptying committee.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CJ

user-pic

November 5, 2009 3:08 PM   

One word: reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 4:57 PM    in reply to CJ

Second.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 10:35 PM    in reply to Kenneth Thomas

Third.

The damned plan actually has to work. The more conservative it is, the more it doesn't do shit.

It has to have some impact in 2010 so Dems gain seats instead of loose them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 12:05 AM    in reply to hollywood

Fourth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:08 PM    in reply to CJ

More words: Tailor your "reconciliation option" legislation to be the most effective, progressive package possible (think Medicare for All) with a bare 50 votes in the Senate. Let it be known that this is on the table, and you might just have the votes to do it.

In other words, give the insurance companies a taste of an outcome that they will actually fear. Suddenly, the Blue Dogs will be falling all over themselves to get back to the current, "pre-compromised" package -- and they will stop pretending that it is otherwise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:18 PM    in reply to Cool Blue Reason

And why do you think this won't be filibustered???

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

slb

user-pic

November 5, 2009 5:30 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Under the Congregessional Budget Act, budget reconciliation resolutions cannot be filibustered. The negative is that reconciliation resolutions have strict rules that they have to follow if the provisions in it are to survive point of order challenges.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:38 PM    in reply to slb

Which they most assuredly will. And what vote threshold is required to overrule a point of order?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

slb

user-pic

November 5, 2009 5:48 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

The Senate Parliamentarian rules on those challenges; to reverse the Parliamentarian's decision requires 60 votes. Which is why you don't want to include provisions in the budget reconciliation resolution that could fall to a point of order challenge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 12:34 AM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Reconciliation is not held to 60 votes as I understand. It is a 50 vote threshold. There are 50 Dems who can really do something worthwhile here. I hope it goes that way. Stronger and faster at 50 votes works better in 2010. Medicare for Everyone. Who the hell is going to argue with Medicare? Grandma loves it why wouldn't you? Republicans who oppose Medicare for Everyone should give up their government run healthcare and go buy in the private market. Your money where your mouth is. Take a little of your own medicine .....too bad about those pre-existing conditions .....

Oh and please do not forget the Bush tax cuts to the filthy rich .... costing 2.4 trillion including the interest payments .... was done with a 50 vote reconciliation.

Tax cuts for the rich on would seem to equal healthcare for everyone. Do Dems have the courage?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:26 PM    in reply to Cool Blue Reason

FYI since the public option or Medicare for all would help in reducing the deficit and therefore affect the overall budget, then yes you can put those two items in as "you damn well please"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:40 PM    in reply to jo3wang

But not every provision would have a budget impact. Those that don't can't be included.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 6:38 PM    in reply to Cool Blue Reason

They won't go with Medicare For All because even an Medicare + 5% didn't have the 218 votes in the House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 3:25 PM   

Reconciliation or put in an opt-in option and then make the change to opt out (or just a plain old public option) in the joint committee and send it back - we know they have 50 votes to pass it (51 with Biden) so play the Republican game and lie now to get your way. People are dying every day these pampered princesses delay.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 4:07 PM    in reply to Powkat

Bingo! I like the way you think.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 4:20 PM    in reply to LBJs Brain

I think you guys are under the common misconception that conference reports can't be filibustered -- unfortunately they can:

http://congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/10/22/1773/-Recurring-Question-Department:-Can-you-filibuster-a-conference-report

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

user-pic

November 5, 2009 4:28 PM    in reply to dedelste

Yes, a common misconception, indeed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:21 PM    in reply to dedelste

Or that you can put anything into a reconciliation that you damn well please.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 4:25 PM   

An amendment to allow states to pursue single-payer health care without incurring insurance-industry lawsuits was stripped from the House bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, adding that it would break President Obama's commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html&cp

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:00 PM   

I am not a big fan of this bill. I think it is deeply flawed, but we need a real starting place to begin reform and if this is it, let's get the process started. Siding with GOP, which is what Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Landreiu are threatenting should not be tolerated. If they refuse to vote for cloture, they need to go at election time and they need to loose any seniority and plumb committees for being the first to defy the leadership.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 5:46 PM   

Isn't it a shame that it's possible that health care reform could die because of job liebermans ego. But hey, joe feels relevant now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

November 5, 2009 6:15 PM   

Why these Senators think that they advance their election prospects by voting against the majority of their constituents and against a much higher proportion of their base is beyond me until I look at the percentage of insurance contributions for most of them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 6:41 PM    in reply to AJM

Yes, except they may yet find out they will pay a high price for this. I believe Progressive Democrats are really, really fed up and will help finance primary challenges for Democrats who fail to adhere to the clear will of the majority of voters on this particular issue, especially.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 6:37 PM   

Why are these senators being referred to as "moderates"? Joe Lieberman is a right-winger by any reasonable global standard, and all of these Senators have politics that would be described as very conservative in any other advanced nation. Even here, I see little distinction between these Democrats (Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh, Pryor, Lincoln, and the non-Democrat Lieberman) and at least an equal number of Republicans, apart from the fact that their party has real party discipline.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 9:39 PM    in reply to oldionus

It's the usual false-equivalence from our political media. Because Republicans have driven out all the liberal Republicans and almost all of the moderates, pundits have to pretend that the Democratic Party includes no conservatives. Thus you have the ludicrous spectacle of Ben Nelson being called a "moderate."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 6:46 PM   

I gotta believe Wal Mart would LOVE to have single payer, then they would not have to buy insurance for their employees.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 7:12 PM    in reply to runfastandwin

Mall-wart, not so much. They currently have a competitive advantage because they intentionally hire workers who already have insurance through spouses or the government, or rely on part-time workers who don't qualify. But what continues to surprise me is that the big manufacturers (car companies, Boeing, GE, etc) who pay higher wages AND pay substantial health care costs that really do effect their competitiveness should have been all over this years ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 5, 2009 8:04 PM   

I just don't know. As a long time poster to this blog, I must say that I am almost depressed, firstly by the results of Tuesday's election, but mostly by the arguments about health care reform. When America re?elected Bush in 2004, the rest of the world was just stunned at the stupidity of the American electorate. When you elected BO, we applauded your maturity, and now this health care debate forces one to conclude that there is a vast number of people who don't rely on facts as the basis of their decision making, who really are followers instead of patriots (to use their words). Like I said, I'm very sad that there are so many dumb people around who effectively hijack the betterment of a whole nation through ignorance. Sitting here in Canada, I fail to understand how one doesn't care for one's fellow citizen as so many of these tea-party supporters seem to do. I see no need to recite all the good reasons for health reform, b/c most on this blog are literate, thoughtful people, but the loonies are in the majority in your country. Sad, very sad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 1:27 AM    in reply to truthspeaker

Yes it is sad. Progressive Americans share your view I assure you. The basic problem is religious indoctrination that substitutes blind faith for educated reason. It makes problem solving almost impossible in any efficient timeframe. The truth is that the dumb redneck rural rearend of America is the most dangerous thug mob on the planet. Did you see the evil of Bush and Cheney unleashed? The fact is that Progressive Americans are the only force that can keep the world from riding into complete chaos. Wish us good luck.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 8:11 AM    in reply to hollywood

Apropos, the NYT yesterday carried a book review of a new book, "Denialism" by Michael Specter, which makes the same point in spades:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/books/05book.html?ref=books

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 4:06 AM   

The American body politic needs health care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 10:09 AM   

It's insulting, that healthcare is a P.R. campaign, where the ones who are financially dominant, are the ones who prevail. It is fascinating though, how people could be herded into supporting an industry, that profits, by denying them care. It is also disturbing, that any politician, could continue to hold office, after betraying so blatantly, the public, he was elected to represent.
Enjoy this, and feel free to pass this on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y08uJ42X48

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 1:04 PM   

The certainly need to come together on this. The public option has been divisive, but it is a great way forward. We have proven evidence that it can work on a large scale in this country! http://cli.gs/z3AtaY/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 6, 2009 4:47 PM   

Just a thought...

The current bill is going to be a mess regardless which compromise is ultimately accepted... By the time this thing is put "through the ringer" there will be very little remaining to even consider it a victory... In the end the Democratic Party will end up taking an election year beating - and at what cost???

Further, until the Democratic Congress, in both the Senate and the House, start to represent the PEOPLE and not just the sole interests of CORPORATE MONOPOLIES, bills such as this are doomed to failure...

Maybe the question of the day should really be: "WHO DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REPRESENT/STAND FOR"??? - PEOPLE (or) CORPORATIONS???"...
(And having been a Republican for many decades, previously, I know clearly what the Republican Party stands for)...

Whatever this bill ends up in final form, ask yourself this question: "IS THIS THE BEST SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM???" If the answer is "no", then why do you delude yourselves into accepting something so obviously flawed, without correcting it??? And if you cannot correct it, then why would you want to pass a bad bill -- just for a WIN in the column???

I ask the above question in all sincerity...

Voters appreciate someone who fights for their interests, whether they win or not !!! What they hate are sell-outs who cave-in to corporate interests, and they will punish those who they believe are working against them !!!

Decade after decade, the Progressives of the Democratic Party strive to actually benefit the "common man", and they are courted for their activism, money, and votes, year after year, election cycle after election cycle...

Yet, year after year, once elected these very same politicians throw them under the bus in the name of "bi-partisanship" and "compromise", to get elected again, to hold the very same positions that never advance the goals of those who actually got them there in the first place... The age-old mantra of "for the good of the party - please Progressives, compromise what you really want once again"...

And everyone will jump on the bandwagon just to get something passed that certainly doesn't address and/or improve real health care, and at best, is a marginal health insurance reform plan... (And I might add that it won't cut costs in the short run)... Then, it adds further insult to injury and mandates a plan that rewards the very same corporations that were to be reined in, yet with ever higher premiums to be paid by the "common man"...And on top of all this, even if there is a "public option", that isn't designed to fail, (yeah right), it will be ADMINISTERED by the same corporate health insurers who run the "for-profit corporations", and will only be applicable to approximately 2 per cent of the population...

Wow, that should be a result that the Democratic Party will be proud to have created; coupled with taxpayers STILL PAYING HIGHER PREMIUMS TO THESE SAME INSURERS; and no improvement whatsoever regarding HEALTH CARE...

Yep that should definitely assure a Democratic victory in the next cyle, won't it!!!

This is sad, really so sad... I actually hope the Progressives, for once, don't cave in, and kill this bill...

By the time the "conservative" Democrats, (whatever that implies, other than a Republican clothed as a Democrat), finish with this, aside from that articulated above, there will not be a PUBLIC OPTION AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE (which REALLY would reduce costs), not even a reduction in the entrance age for Medicare recipients to 60 year olds, nor any attempt to actually eliminate their anti-trust status, nor even allowances for REAL interstate competition between companies.

And the insurance industry wins yet again!

And please don't delude yourselves further that President Obama nor this Congress will have any interest in re-visiting HEALTH CARE in the near future - so spare me the "we will add on and perfect it later" approach...

The last election cycle was a clear signal that the PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANTED REAL CHANGE - and against what most of the comments and opinions posted on TPM believe, President Obama had the support of not only Democrats, but also many, many Republicans and Independents, too.

Instead of bold and decisive action, he has opted for "bi-partisanship" and "compromise" with my former party, the Republicans.

Where is the REAL CHANGE???

How is it NOT business as usual???

(And pundits wonder why the Democrats lost Virginia and New Jersey? Please...)


Congress and the President compromised to Ms. Snowe (R-Maine) for the "bi-partisan stimulus", by reducing the total amount of money used, knowing full-well that it was inadequate, in direct contravention of every economic analysts' opinion...
(And don't hesistate to tell me how well that "compromise" worked out for the Democratic Party; as well as, how the general public has been so pleased by its anemic end results; and that the general public values that "bi-partisonship" over a "good bill" that would give them jobs!!!)...

Instead, the Republican Party is beating your brains out because they stand on PRINCIPLE, however right or wrong they may be... Show me where your Democratic counter-parts are standing for their CORE PRINCIPLES regarding health insurance reform...

Now, without any Republican support, one Independent from Connecticut who is wholly owned by the Insurance Lobby, combined with a group of "conservative Democrats" (whose core beliefs are anti-thesis to the basic tenants of the Party Platform), coupled with a President who has already made financial concessions to Big Pharma for 10 years, who calls a 'true' public option a mere "sliver", and who just wants to pass a bill (ANY BILL), and as an Independent, I'm supposed to believe that the final health insurance bill is going to be favorable to me, a simple citizen???? Spare me please...

The Democratic Party may be the "party of ideas", but when it comes to "discipline" the Democrats have none...

This is the test:
Can the Democrats "govern"???...
Ideas and concepts are great, but the true test is actually having them implemented... (and right now I'm having my doubts...)

Lastly, and more importantly, for the entire eight years of the Bush Era Presidency, when the Republicans had approximately 53 Senators, I don't remember any Democratic Senator standing up and opposing Republican initiatives with even the "threat" of a potential filibuster to any legislation they wanted to pass, or, attempting to procedurally block legislation going to the floor for debate -- so I would hope that when the Republicans again gain the Majority in the Senate, that the remaining Democratic Senators have learned a lesson from their counter-parts and actually stand-up for some basic principles the next time around!!! (And, if this health insurance bill does pass, that time may be sooner than most think...)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular