TPMDC
Progressive Pro-Public Option Group Calls Senate Compromise 'Outrageous'
Share
Send to a friend!
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee doesn't feel like compromising on the public option, regardless of what Democrats in the Senate say is required to pass a health care reform bill. In an email sent to its membership today, the PCCC calls the new compromise plan unveiled last night "outrageous" and urges pro-public option members of the Senate to reject it.
The group again calls on Democrats in the Senate to abandon their goal of getting 60 votes to pass reform and instead use the reconciliation process to push a public option past its Senate opponents on both sides of the aisle. From the email:
The Senate has the right to pass a bill with 51 votes -- but to avoid offending Republicans, Democrats haven't used it. That's just weak.
The group is targeting Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Roland Burris (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) -- who the PCCC says have "said in the past they'd only support a strong public option" -- with a petition drive calling on them to reject the compromise and hold out for a public option.
Earlier today, Feingold suggested he hasn't made up his mind about the compromise yet.
The PCCC progressives have come too far to compromise away a public option now. The group claims the new bill will do the most harm to one of President Obama's strongest constituents:
And after President Obama got elected with an outpouring of young people, this "compromise" has provisions that leave anyone under age 55 behind -- and actually creates perverse incentives for insurance companies to deny young people care.
Comments (15) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
willia451
December 9, 2009 4:42 PM
And after President Obama got elected with an outpouring of young people, this "compromise" has provisions that leave anyone under age 55 behind -- and actually creates perverse incentives for insurance companies to deny young people care.
This is what I've been saying in several posts out here today.
What is in this compromise for those hit by the individual mandates and fines? Other than being sold down the river to the insurance companies?
Again, NO individual mandates WITHOUT a strong public option.
If you're NOT going to have a strong PO, drop the mandates and fines. Otherwise the backlash will be horrendous. IMO it will wind up being a public policy disaster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 9, 2009 4:49 PM
I bet the Republicans are happy to know there's still progressives that don't know a damn thing about parliamentary procedure and don't understand reconciliation is likely to do more damage to the bill than compromising on certain provisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 9, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to Icon
It's not about procedure and compromise. Its about policy. Again, IMO, we HAVE to have a strong PO in this bill. Americans will not submit to fines or mandates, without at least being offered a strong, subsidized, affordable PO to fall back on.
These are AMERICANS we're talking about. As soon as they realize they have been sold down the river to the insurance companies, they'll take to the streets. It will make the Tea Party Movement look like a cub scout meeting. Can you say, Vietnam War Protests?
If we aren't going to have a strong PO, then drop the damn mandates and fines. Make it all voluntary. That would be fine with me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
December 9, 2009 5:45 PM in reply to willia451
I wish that were true but Americans wont take to the streets over this.
But they wont show up at the polls.
I am predicting a 40% fall off in the next elections based on how they have screwed the people so far.
In fact any dem that needs African-Americans to win election will lose.
They have been hit extremely hard even compared to the country in general and from speaking to my neighbors are totally disillusioned by the failings of what they perceived a black president and total control of congress would bring.
And everyone else is close behind.
Democrats will lose the house at a minimum.
And I welcome their total defeat with the hope that a strong third party emerges.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NYCBlaine
December 9, 2009 6:09 PM in reply to willia451
Um, what world do you live in? Americans don't take to the streets. The CBO, and many policy experts, estimated that public option premiums would be as costly, if not more, than those in the private market. Subsidies would be the mitigating factor, and those can be offered with or without a public option.
If you want to talk policy, do a little research first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 9, 2009 6:54 PM in reply to Icon
Not based on anything I've seen. Even were the parliamentarian to reject provisions of the bill as being non-budgetary, that would not apply to the public option itself. (Since it is) Given that that's the only thing that isn't getting 60 votes, it's the only element that would even need to be in reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
richard f
December 9, 2009 8:17 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
The public option DOESN"T meet the standards for reconciliation. Not only would the parliamentarian reject it, leading Democrat senators who support the public option but don't like to screw around with the rules (Senator Byrd for one) would oppose reconciliation. You can't just take the over 60 vote provisions and vote them in by invoking cloture and vote the provisions that lack 60 votes in by reconciliation. It doesn't work that way.
And the people who are claiming that a righteous third party will arise if health reform is defeated, you're f------ nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
December 10, 2009 3:16 AM in reply to richard f
Why exactly do you think that the public option doesn't satisfy the requirements for reconciliation?
And you most certainly can do the provisions that don't meet the requirements of reconciliation through the normal process even if you do the public option through reconciliation. You just do two separate bills. Simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
December 10, 2009 3:29 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
Based on CBO scoring, the public otion itself is actually budget-neutral and would be directly in the crosshairs of government.
Some of the other things, such as the mandates are also likely to be stripped out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rhytonen
December 9, 2009 11:35 PM in reply to Icon
I agree - this is just a giveaway to Private Insurance, and there's NO TIME LEFT to "build on this" - and most probably no majority for another 30 years.
Both 51-vote options would work fine if you just propopse Medicare for All. It's PROVABLY a Budget Item, 50% savings IN THE REAL WORLD by the W.H.O.
The other reforms have bipartisan support with overwhelming pressure from constituents - even to Repugs. Pass them separately in the "normal(?)" way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
December 10, 2009 3:19 AM in reply to Icon
People keep repeating that "reconciliation will do more damage" mantra without ever justifying it.
Exactly how does splitting out the public option and passing it through reconciliation (then doing the non-reconciliation provisions through the normal process in a separate bill), do more damage to health care reform that the "compromises" that have been gutting health care reform?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 9, 2009 5:06 PM
Good on them!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 9, 2009 5:56 PM
When are progressives going to figure out that there is no progressive party? Time to find one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike2
December 9, 2009 9:50 PM
How can the government require me to do business with a private company, just because I exist?
This isn't about requiring me to do so because I want to engage in a privilege like driving....
This has got to violate some right of free association... http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-association This states a positive right... but what about a negative right, to decline to be associated with a company or organization.
In history, have we ever had this kind of mandate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 10, 2009 9:26 AM in reply to Mike2
No one's requiring you to do anything. They're just imposing a fairly modest tax penalty on you if you choose to go without health insurance. That tax will be much less than you'd pay in premiums and it won't go very far to cover the cost to the taxpayers if your uninsured butt gets hit by a car.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?