TPMDC

Carper: Conservative Democrats Not Likely To Support Senate Public Option

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) cast serious doubt tonight on whether conservative Democrats will ultimately vote for cloture on the Senate health care bill if it retains a public option with an opt-out clause, and gave new details on yet another compromise that he says might work for them.

Carper, who voted for a public option amendment during the Senate Finance Committee proceedings, first floated his idea last week as a potential alternative, in the event that Reid's public option proposal failed to muster enough Democratic support to overcome a filibuster. Now he says he doubts the support is there.

"We're concerned that a number of centrists aren't prepared to vote for a national public plan, even with an opt-out," Carper said in response to a question from TPMDC. "We're trying to find something that addresses their concern about government run, government-funded, but still addresses the need for the affordability needs and the need for more competition in states that don't have it."

"What we're asking centrists is, What concerns do you need to have addressed so that you can vote for cloture, either to bring the bill to the floor, or to take the bill off the floor and to go to conference? And the two concerns we keep hearing over and over again: government-run, government funded."

(The opt-out plan Reid has proposed would not be government funded, though it's not clear whether it would be run directly by the government, or outsourced to a non-governmental body accountable to Congress.)

The Delaware senator cautions that the bill that comes to the Senate floor in the next several days will almost certainly include the broader public option Reid announced weeks ago, and that this new alternative will simply exist as a possible fallback in the event that the opt-out plan can't get 60 votes.

Carper's proposal would share some features with the public option Reid has proposed--it would be a single federal entity that negotiated rates with providers--i.e. built on a "level playing field"--but unlike the Reid plan, it would not blanket all states as a default, and then allow certain state governments to opt out.

Instead, Carper's plan would erect an affordability standard (the details of which have yet to be determined) and establish this non-profit entity by fiat in states that don't meet the standard. This is similar in principle to the "trigger" option proposed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), but unlike Snowe's trigger plan, there would be no delay. States that failed to meet the affordability standard would be forced to offer the plan immediately, when the insurance exchanges open in 2013.

"At the end of the day we may need something along the lines of what I suggested," Carper said. "The idea is to figure out what states don't meet an affordability standard, those states that don't meet an affordability standard [will] have another option to list on their state's exchanges, it would be negotiated probably by a non-profit board, perhaps appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, with some involvement, at least initially, by HHS...the Secretary could even be an ex-officio member of the board."

"The day we stand up the exchange, in the states that don't meet an affordability standard, this option would go up as an option on their exchange," Carper added.

Asked about Carper's plan, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)--a strong public option supporter, and chairman of the Senate HELP Committee--told reporters he'd heard of it, and joked "I'm sure if there's some way of making this bill even more convoluted, I'm sure that someone will probably come up with it at some time or another." But he did say everyone's keeping their options open.

Comments (89) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

November 17, 2009 5:27 PM   

Conservadems never compromise away anything. Just keep asking for more and more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:50 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

The reason is simple. We want this very badly, and they're happy with nothing. That's not exactly an equal negotiating position. Given how hard it's been to get this far, and how many years are likely to pass before anyone can try again --- presumably facing as big a fight --- blue dogs and their Senate equivalents know we're in no position to say no. We have to try to get them to see how much failure will hurt at the ballot box. That's really the only leverage we have. If they keep their seats, then they have to see their majority threatened.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:58 PM    in reply to ericf

Swing votes always have the most leverage. Yet they also know that if the whole ship goes down, they go with it. It's a game of chicken.

It's always been so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:04 PM    in reply to ericf

I think Reid has realized this, and that's why there's been no news out of the Senate for a while. The Conservadems are simply assholes; when you compromise with them, they wait about 4 days, then demand that you compromise your compromise position.

They still don't even know what the public option is. They don't give a shit, they're just trying to prove their dicks are bigger than Sherrod Brown's.

Well, fuck them. They can find out what's in the bill, compromise, then the next day we fucking vote. If they filibuster their own compromise, they fuck off and die.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 4, 2009 8:28 PM    in reply to ericf

perfectly stated.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tim

user-pic

November 18, 2009 4:49 AM    in reply to Walter Mitty

"He who cares the least controls the relationship."

This is especially true in politics.

Think about Chamberlain in Munich groveling to the dictators in a made attempt to avoid war and secure peace. Chamberlain cared about peace. Hitler didn't. End of story.

Bush with our troups in Iraq, asks a Democratic majority in 2007 for funding of the war. The Democrats care about the people. Bush didn't or they wouldn't be over there in the first place. End of story.

If this notion were commonly known aspect of civics, people wouldn't be so kind to the Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 5:18 AM    in reply to Tim

This is as true in relationships as in politics. Very interesting observation!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:38 PM   

Yet they just L-O-V-E government-run and government-funded Medicare.

How is it their heads don't explode?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:40 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Never mind that. As this very article points out, the public option isn't even government-funded. It's funded by premiums from people buying into it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:07 PM    in reply to Xantar

But it doesn't really matter. That's the point. Since Reagan, the Republicans have been peddling the idea that anything run by the government is inevitably a dismal failure. This meme has insinuated itself so deeply into the public consciousness that now anything that is "government-run" or "government-anything" is viewed with skepticism by a large segment (even a majority) of people. Just look at the polls on health care. The answer you get depends on how the question is worded, and any time the words "government" appear in the question, support drops by 10 points.

This is really what we're fighting - the widespread perception that anything even associated with the government is bad. That this perception is so widely held, despite the popularity of so many government programs, is remarkable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:35 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

I hear ya. The thugs are much better getting their messages to stick plus they still have the attention of the MSM.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:37 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

But another truth is, their "message" is actually far easier to stick. Simplistic slogans, repeated again and again and again, without any specifics (say, "anything run by the government is bad" or "Super Bowl of Freedom!" even) do not require any active brain cell to absorb. Actual policy proposals and policy formation processes, with details and specifics and tidiousness, are inherently difficult to sell. And to present real proposals to the public in an accessible, easy-to-understand-and-relate-to manner is quite a challenge on the PR front.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 5:16 AM    in reply to geofu54

You're right, but it's possible to reduce the progressive agenda to bumper stickers, too. We just have to be creative. And you're also correct about staying on message. Just keep saying the same thing, over and over. We don't do that. Part of the problem is that we're defeatist and keep feeling we have to be reasonable, make compromises. And part of the problem is we exaggerate the public's unwillingness to contemplate public assistance and regulation. The old 'government is incompetent' meme is no older than Reagan. Nixon was a socialist, by comparison. Ditto Eisenhower. So...basically I agree with you, but I think it's possible to fight fire with fire.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 8:03 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

But why, then, does the public option get more support in polls than the overall health care reform plan?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 10:18 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Don't fall for their lies. This is not because they believe that it will not work. These people are against the government running any health care plan, government funded or not, because they know it will work. And a working government plan threatens their profits.

Democrats should pass the bill in a reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:16 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

And the fact that the "goverment funded" aspect won't go away: those subsidies will just be spent on more expensive private healthcare. Which is of course what the ConservaDems want.

John

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:43 PM   

Scrap the whole idea. This is becoming farcical in its ability to fracture the House along abortion lines, the Senate along money and corporate lines, and the nation along ridiculous death panel media blitzing.

What a mess.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:24 PM    in reply to jolly ranchero

Agreed.

I would settle for a courageous effort to push back the limits of change, show what our government is capable of doing when push comes to shove, and to protect lives in the Homeland by a long over due lionhearted push for some society changing legislation. Ban texting messaging while driving.

Impossible. Any such bill would die in committee.

It would rock the boat too much. Republicans would doubt it would work, or is even needed, and would claim that it was the first step onto a slippery slope to taking their guns away.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:41 PM    in reply to jolly ranchero

Agreed. Between this trial balloon of watering down or losing the PO and the bullshit Stupak abomination, scrap the whole deal.

Fuck it. Passing a mandatory insurance requirement without a robust PO with full free-choice will be not just a policy disaster but a political neutron bomb. How fucking dumb these so-called "centrist" Dems are is truly amazing. They simply don't fucking get it. They could fuck up a wet dream.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:19 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

In some cases, it is their ties to the insurance companies. In Lieberman's case, it's probably nothing more than a desire to get attention.

But for many of these "centrist" Dems, they don't look at it most of us here do. They represent conservative constituencies that, for whatever reason, don't favor healthcare reform. If they don't vote a relatively conservative line on issues like this, they'll end up like Tom Daschle and get voted out by a younger Republican idealogue.

Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu represent states that Obama lost by an even bigger margin than John Kerry did. Ben Nelson represents a state that Obama lost by 15 points. Evan Bayh represents a state that Obama won by less than 25,000 votes, and that voted for the Republican nominee every election before that going back to 1964.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

November 18, 2009 12:02 AM    in reply to jdb316

Yet in some of these states the public option is popular. It is highly unlikely that these politicians would get any of the votes of those against public option. And if they vote for a Stupak equivalent they will have find that pro-choice women -- formerly active supporters -- will be sitting on their hands.

Remember also that Collins and Snowe are pro-choice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 12:02 AM    in reply to jdb316

Yeah, who can forget Daschle's liberal record...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:13 PM    in reply to jolly ranchero

Definitely. Such a mess.

I really have no idea how they come up with this stuff. What kind of compromise is cutting the PO but making health care mandatory? How can they see that as anything but bowing down the insurance companies and funneling money straight into their pockets?

And how can anyone look at this and not think the anti-PO's are motivated by insurance lobbyists?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:48 PM    in reply to jolly ranchero

It would help if the message was much simpler. The easiest way to do this might be to break this into several bills.

For example, one bill could be called "Medicare for Kids" and expand Medicare coverage to everyone under 18. That's easy to understand, appealing to most people, and hard to vote against.

Another bill could be called "Buy into Medicare" and allow anyone who wants to, regardless of age, to buy into Medicare coverage.

Another bill could be called "Consumer Protection for Health Insurance" and could prevent health insurance abuses like screening for pre-existing conditions and dropping people once they get sick.

Keep it simple, use things people already understand (like Medicare), and stick to things with wide public support (like helping children and protecting people from our deeply unpopular health insurance companies).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 2:49 AM    in reply to GregGreg

I have to say, those are some pretty darn brilliant ideas imho, GregGreg.

Like chicken mcnugget concepts for healthcare. Only these good for the country.

Ping me if you ever run for office. I'll contrib.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:46 PM   

These centrists only vote democrat when it doesn't matter. I bet they voted more with Bush on the big issues to give them cloture than they'll vote with their own party.

Blanche Lincoln is toast. Though I bet they try a gimmick where she'll vote for it knowing the other clowns will vote to filibuster. then she'll go to Arkansas and say either "I voted for it but it was defeated" or "I voted for it because I knoew it was going to be defeated" depending on her audience.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:14 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

"These centrists only vote democrat when it doesn't matter."

That is SO true and that is why "centrist" as a term for them is a lie. They are right wing conservatives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:49 PM   

Now it makes sense why the progressives had a meeting with Harry Reid last night.

Screw the centrists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:51 PM   

"We're concerned that a number of centrists aren't prepared to vote for a national public plan, even with an opt-out"

You are not "centrist", asshole. You value insurance industry profits over the health of the American people. People are dying in emergency rooms every day because of heartless scum like you.

And have you looked at how popular opposing health care reform has made your fellow "centrist," Mike "formerly the next Senator from Delaware" Castle?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:52 PM   

This is such utter bullshit. Every Dem should vote for cloture on procedural grounds or face expulsion from the caucus. Let's have an up-or-down vote on the public option (and I suppose the convoluted versions of it). If it gets 51 votes, it's in. If the overall bill gets 51 votes, it passes. Supporting a Republican-led filibuster to prevent majority rule is a betrayal that should have the harshest consequences for anyone caucusing wih the Dems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dk

user-pic

November 17, 2009 7:14 PM    in reply to Moose49

right on. if they won't even allow a vote, let alone vote with the dems when it comes to the floor, who needs them? Let's see how their fundraising goes when they aren't in the caucus and have no committee positions to speak of.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dk

user-pic

November 17, 2009 7:15 PM    in reply to Moose49

right on. if they won't even allow a vote, let alone vote with the dems when it comes to the floor, who needs them? Let's see how their fundraising goes when they aren't in the caucus and have no committee positions to speak of.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:28 PM    in reply to dk

Yes, I can live with him voting no, though I strongly disagree. But to prevent a vote from taking place at all -- on the number one priority of his president and his party's leadership -- is unconscionable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:54 PM   

Wow, a triggered opt-in "level playing field" co-op! Great idea, Carper. Now you just have to find a way for such a ridiculously hobbled corpse of a program to actually, you know, offer plans at a lower cost.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:57 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Wow, you really labeled that PERFECTLY, such comrpomised bullshit. I won't stand for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 5:56 PM   

No less than an opt-out. Anything less isn't reform I don't give a FLYING FUCK what they don't want, we have compromised enough on this shit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:02 PM    in reply to theone718

The thing is that idiots like Carper think we just want a "government program" and that we'll take anything we can get. But what we want is lower costs. If they can't do a government-run program, then they need to either:

(a) cap premiums and cost-sharing like other multi-payer countries
(b) make subsidies available to everyone

But this would require these "centrists" to actually understand this issue on a pragmatic level and not just as an abstract ideological battle between socialism and capitalism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:04 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Which is to say... because they're completely ignorant of the fact that people like the public option because it lowers costs, they think liberals just want a "government program" for the heck of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 8:41 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Exactly. They're the ideologues. Progressives just want something that has proven to work in other countries, plans that cover everyone and keep costs down. Canada, Germany, Japan - all payer, single payer. Doesn't matter to me. Let's take off our Milton Friedman sunglasses and forget about untested and incredibly abstruse approaches to health care reform. I guarantee, once this plan is seen not to keep costs down (they'll continue to skyrocket), they'll start talking about moving towards a hybrid results-based and fee-for-service model for paying providers. Which won't work either. Christ, our politicians are stupid. Venal and stupid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:00 PM   

Now exactly why are they democrats ?

And why are some so quick to ask GOP pols,if they are going to join the Dem party ?why would you want more Dem congress people who don't suuport the bacis tenet of the Dem party to become members is crazy.
Those TV people I see asking GOP if they are gonna join the dem party,were Rachel msnbc(Scazaffava),Ed Shultz msnbc(Cao)& Larry O'Donnel speculating that moderate GOP likely to bolt to the Dems.

I think the Dems are already suffering from their recruiting of con-dems in the 90's under BClinton.Just take a look at the HCR confusion that caused by con-dems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:02 PM   

One word: UGH.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:03 PM   

"Centerists"???? Call them what they are, Conservative Democrats who are getting their their campaign coffers greened by the insurance lobby. They are no better than the Republicans. They have no interest in helping a true reform bill through the Senate or the House for that matter. Their goal is to kill reform all together because they have been bought and paid for by the special interests. Every one of them needs a primary challenge next year and LIEberman needs to be stripped of ALL his chairmanships. What's Obama getting in return for kissing the ol LIEberman brown eye?? Something very brown.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:05 PM   

Well, overall HCR just doesn't poll very well. No wonder they're afraid

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

Favor 42.9% Oppose 47.7%

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:20 PM    in reply to Campesino

While it's true that HCR overall doesn't poll very well, it's also true that the current incarnation of the public option consistently polls with strong majority support. As the internals of the new CNN poll demonstrate, this disparity comes from the fact that about 20-25% opposition to the overall package comes from people who think it's not progressive enough. So with that in mind, the sensible thing for someone anxious about public sentiment is to support those provisions that the public supports and work to scrap those that the public does not support. The conservadems, however, are working against the public's wishes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:32 PM    in reply to Campesino

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:43 PM    in reply to Campesino

Given the disparity between all those polls, and all the ones that consistently show high support for a strong public option, I suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that virtually all of the former phrase the question as "do you support the current proposal", assuming that people know what it is. When in fact, given statements like Carper's, it's clear that even members of Congress don't even know what it is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:44 PM    in reply to Campesino

ABC's poll out today show clear support 53-43 for HCR with a PO. So pick your poll to fit your agenda I suppose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:53 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

71% support a PO limited to the exchange.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:10 PM    in reply to Campesino

Again? Come up with a new statement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:07 PM   

It's high time the White House decided what it's willing to go to the line for and for the president to start knocking heads. I'm tired of these fair weather Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:29 PM    in reply to Legalpenman

What exactly can the President do at this point? "Centrists" on both sides, in Bush's case Snowe and Collins, have watered down every agenda that a President wants to push through. They have very large egos and that's exactly what Obama should be doing if he wants to succeed, he has to stroke their egos. If he goes too hard or threatens them, they could destroy the entire process. They DON'T WANT HEALTHCARE REFORM. They want NOTHING. It's very hard to negotiate with nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:57 PM    in reply to calchala

They want no real reform and Obama would like nothing better than to oblige them. He wants to pass a very long, convoluted bill that basically leaves everything in its place, with a few tweaks here and there that he can call 'historic'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:15 PM   

Make them filibuster then go to reconciliation. The ones who filibuster get to lose their chairmanships and Lieberman gets the boot altogether. Carper is such a GD wimp! He is utterly useless!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:36 PM    in reply to cmpnwtr

Right on. I am fed up with these Democrat weasels. Let's just do the reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:11 PM    in reply to lcdrrek

Reconciliation won't work the way you think it will. This is not the sort of bill that would work well with a reconciliation maneuver.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:17 PM   

these people are unreal. how do they justify having a government in the first place? the government funds and runs the military. should we scrap the military, and instead let people buy their own protection from firms like blackwater? the government runs and funds all the myriad federal agencies, law enforcement and otherwise. should we scrap all that, too?

wait ... i believe the government also funds and runs ... the country. let's scrap congress, and the executive, and the judiciary, too.

these people are worse than malicious -- they're stupid AND malicious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 6:19 PM   

The "centrists" are the center of corruption. The centrists are the center of what is wrong with this country. The centrists have been at the center of every rotten idea and bad policy that has put the country into the mess it is in.

Fed up? Don't like the way things are going? Well, it's not hard to find the center of the problem is it?

If they kill the bill, let them take the blame for that and everything else.

Democrats are going to need some folks to blame. There they are!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:04 PM   

All this fulminating against the "centrists/copnservatives/whatever you want to call them" is so much bs - the problem is that, as Carper sees it, without their votes, there isn't enough votes to stop a Republican filibuster so nothing gets out of the Senate. Thats very clear. So there are two options - come up with some "compromise" that gets their votes on cloture or put through a bill that doesn't get their votes and see HRC go down in flames this year (and probably not get revived for the next decade, as what happened after the Hilarycare debacle in 1992).The people posting here take the position that no HRC is better than one with the compromises needed to get the Blue Dog votes. I think that is a very shortsighted view. I would argue that we should get the very best bill out of the Senate that we can, even without a public option, and then do the real negotiating in the House-Senate conference. Its too early to pull the plug on HRC now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:25 PM    in reply to richard f

There's another alternative. Most of the key provisions could be passed under budget reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered. PO does not have particularly huge budgetary implications, but its opponents claim that it does- which would make it eligible for reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:09 PM    in reply to midwestdoc

And they'd claim there's no budgetary implication of the public option if the Dems try reconciliation. The only things in the bill that are directly related to the budget are the taxes and Medicare spending cuts.

The public option and the individual and large business mandates are likely to get the axe if they pursue a reconciliation strategy. Without those three, there's no reform, only a convoluted and unpopular way of getting the budget closer to being balanced.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:07 PM   

What the Centrists really want to do is slow the process down for another 60-70 years. That'll keep their corporate masters happy. So what if a few million Americans die in the meantime?

It's what Jesus would do, elevate corporate profits over human suffering. In a just universe, when it's their turn at The Pearly Gates, St. Peter knees each one in the balls before sending them straight to Hell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:13 PM    in reply to Morbo

Let me add that we do need to start framing this as a moral issue. If you're against easing people's pain, you're an immoral asshole, end of story.

Squawk all you want about "socialism" and "death panels", if you can look at the suffering out there and ignore it, there's something fundamentally wrong with your soul.

These callous asshole politicians need to be publicly called out as the immoral monsters they are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:25 PM    in reply to Morbo

Here's the link to some heart-wrenching stories:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33975919/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann

83% of the people at this free clinic are employed. Most of them end up with multiple diagnoses. So sad that we have to have this never-ending argument with inhumane assholes (who by and large consider themselves "Christian") while this suffering goes on in the richest country on the planet. Sad that we have to listen to their callous bullshit when every other advanced society worked this out decades ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:11 PM    in reply to Morbo

Excellent!! This is exactly the way this should have been viewed from the start. Instead, the Obama admin. has allowed it to be seen as just another $$ deal and nothing more. Thats a GOPer frame on everything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:09 PM   

The problem is "cloture." For the love of god, Senator Reid, force an actual filibuster. Them old sons of bitches won't last two days before their prostates explode.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:28 PM    in reply to runfastandwin

We wouldn't want to upset their precious "comity" would we?

After all, their stupid fucking fake politeness to one another is much more important than some poor person dying in an emergency room from a treatable condition.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:31 PM    in reply to Morbo

I nominate Morbo for Senate. He could eat the ones that stand in the way...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:09 PM   

Personally, I'm sick of these DINO's obstructing the will of the people. Harkin says we've got 55 or more votes and I believe him. Fucks like Carper here just need to step out of the way and let a vote happen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 7:37 PM   

Republicans don't govern and Democrats can't govern.

I agree. Reid should bring the full bill to the floor, challenge the dinosaurs to filibuster it. The health bill and the process has already left bad taste in too many mouths. No point asking the progressive to make more concessions.

Also, Reid came out with a opt-out only because of the unprecedented pressure from the left. Now he is using time- the standard tool- to let the pressure frizzle. I bet my soul he will cave in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 8:07 PM   

At this point, it should be crystal clear. Fuck the ConservaDems. Go around them via the Budget Reconciliation process. If the majority compromises away the Public Option any more, Obama and the Dems will lose the Democratic base and donations will dry up even more than they already have.

NO on the Stupak idiocy and NO on further compromising the Public Option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 4, 2009 8:33 PM    in reply to 60th Street

you can say that again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 8:17 PM   

I think the problem the Dems have is that destroying is always easier than building! The GOP and "centrist" Dems who are trying to kill health reform have a much easier job!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 8:28 PM    in reply to celldumceen

That is so true, but it's time Americans held Congress accountable for the destruction.

The faux progressives have gotten as comfortable as an alcoholic's enabling spouse. They blame Blue Dogs but accept the wanton destruction as inevitable accepting no responsibility for the outcome. "Oh, dear me, what can I do, what can I do?"

Divorce them! Take your party back!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 8:24 PM   

Screw the bastards, make them filibuster 24/7, and if that doesn't work, reconciliation time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 8:26 PM   

Ian Welsh observes:

"Obama and the Democratic leadership’s bottom line is they must pass some bill called “health care reform”. Unless you threaten to take away their bottom line, they will take away anything that isn’t progressives bottom line - and that includes practical abortion access, and a robust public option."

A real po (as conceived by Jacob Hacker) preenrolls over a hundred million people, uses Medicare +5% rates and is open to anyone who wants to use it. A weak po won't provide good value health insurance and it won't keep costs down. It is a sop to liberal sensibilities and, in the end, risks giving government programs a bad name and diluting progressive hunger for real change. We're better off without it. If we don't get a strong po, I hope we get none at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:03 PM   

When people base their entire reasoning on a straw man, further discussion is pointless. At least several of the conservative Democrats are basing their opposition on such a patently and unambiguously false understanding of what the public option is. If they keep saying "government run, government funded" when it's not government funded and probably not going to be government run, you're not going to get their votes. It's no different from the Republicans; they claim stuff is in the bill that isn't.

They're not stupid; they know what they're saying is in the bill really isn't. They know the bill is far less a government takeover of health care and much more a reform of the delivery system. They know that the bill is deficit neutral and will help curtail the growth of health care spending. And they know they are making bold-faced lies to their fellow Americans. They don't care what is true, as long as they can distort it enough that the voters don't know the difference between the truth and lies.

The political truth here is that the Republicans (except Joseph Cao and maybe Olympia Snowe) and some of the Conservative Democrats don't really give a rat's ass what's in the bill. They want it to be destroyed, damn any CBO analyses, opinions of economists or health care professionals, reason or logic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:12 PM   

I can understand their concern, but may be if they knew that the public option would help control projectable costs and that it has a proven track record? http://cli.gs/23yYaM/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 9:21 PM    in reply to Stephanie Hunter

For corporate lackies like Lieberman the fact that a PO controls costs IS the problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 5:36 AM    in reply to agio

Make that a 'strong po', because a weak one has no effect. It gets all the sick people, has only a few million people enrolled and has to negotiate rates. A strong po - preenrolls everyone on Medicaid and SCHIP, plus all the uninsured and is open to everyone who wants in but except (possibly) those who are employed by big firms, reimburses providers at Medicare +5% rates and is protected by a strong and vigilantly policed risk adjuster mechanism. If they resort to reconciliation (and because this affects existing programs and the budget, it could be passed that way), this is what they should be working for. Anything less has no effect on cost. And if they're not willing to work for this, we're better off without a po or mandates. Costs will continue to skyrocket, and we can tackle health care reform like adults later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 10:20 PM   

Harkin is right about this. The corporate Democratic Senators don't have the guts to kill it. They might be bribed by the HC industry, but if the bill doesn't pass, it is over for the Democrats, as we now know them, anyway. Either way, we win.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 2:56 AM    in reply to eric the red

Agreed. I'm also wondering just how much it pork it would take to choke the ConservaDems. In the scheme of things, I think we can afford it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 10:44 PM   

The Democrats bigger problem is that the political capital lost in the healthcare debate is beginning to outweigh whatever efficacy you may lose by passing a bill with reconciliation instead of the standard way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 10:59 PM   

I am very concerned that we are not going to be able to get anyone to vote for a Democratic party candidate if there is no public option. And it had better get to be a stronger public option while you all play politics with people's lives.

Maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO METERS. Off of your lips and on the floor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 11:24 PM   

What a mess this HCR/PO has become. The nature of the beast here is to obstruct, lie, and put out as much misinformation and disinformation as possible. Overwhelm your opponents. It's relatively easy to stop reform, especially HCR. And the "reformers" can only compromise so much. It's over.

And when the POTUS offers nothing but lip service you know it's over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 11:50 PM   

Yes, Sen. Carper – if by "centrist" you mean "insurance industry whore."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 17, 2009 11:55 PM   

Then they shouldn't be in the party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 12:08 AM   

Time to use reconciliation. Nuke these fools.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 12:43 AM   

Change the public option opt-out ONLY if, in exchange, the strip insurance companies of their anti-trust exemption.

That's a fair trade.

BTW, Reid might bring HCR to the floor tomorrow: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111703476.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 18, 2009 10:21 AM   

I do not want health insurance. I want health care.

The only reason ANYbody buys health insurance is to pay for health care. Insurance is a means to an end. Health care is an end.

Carper and his fellow republicrats care more about corporate profits than they do about the health of citizens. The bill doesn't reform health care, it merely seeks to provide very profitable insurance to a few more citizens. They should all be ashamed.

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