TPMDC
Who Likes The Public Option Deal, Who Doesn't, And Will It Win 60 Votes For Health Care
Democratic Senators Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Tom Harkin
Share
Send to a friend!
The Senate was remarkably quiet this morning, less than a day after Democratic leaders and health care negotiators announced a tentative deal to swap out the public option in health care legislation for a menu of other measures. But slowly, members have begun making their positions known.
* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) weighed in by saying he still opposes a triggered public plan--one of the elements of the compromise.
* Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) isn't a fan of the idea of letting certain people under the age of 65 buy insurance through Medicare, but he says it's not a deal breaker.
* Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who burst into the heart of health care negotiations without warning, was a holdout in negotiations between liberal and conservative Democrats, and seems on the fence about the agreement.
* By contrast, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) says he thinks the Medicare buy-in might be better than a weak public option.
* Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) told reporters yesterday she opposes the Medicare buy-in, suggesting, though not outright declaring, that she's still out of the mix.
Silent so far have been Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who has told everybody listening that his support for a public option compromise doesn't constitute support for the greater reform package, and his fellow conservative Democrats Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who oppose the opt out public option Harry Reid put in the Senate bill. The two will appear at a press event later today.
Outside the Senate, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) thinks the deal shows real promise, as does former DNC chair, and progressive bellwether Howard Dean.
The picture, therefore, is decidedly mixed. Which means, after all this effort, 60 votes remains uncertain. That's probably why Reid sent an array of options to CBO, and why nobody will know the nittiest, grittiest details of the compromise until it's unveiled.
Comments (52) | 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.
clonecone
December 9, 2009 1:58 PM
I'm so sick of Feingold. Landrieu has a more progressive voting record this session. Russ ranks as one of the most conservative members of the caucus based on his actual voting record. Stop referring to the jerk as a progressive and treat him like the DINO he truly is.
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?chamber=Senate&sort=crucial-current&order=down&party=All
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PeninsulaMatt
December 9, 2009 2:26 PM in reply to clonecone
Feingold is not a DINO. I've followed his career since he was in the Wisconsin State Senate in the early 90s and he's always been like this. He is truly a maverick. He keeps his own council. He wants things to make sense. Sometimes he will keep an eye on what his constituents think but most of the time he just does what he thinks is best for the USA. I don't always agree with him and I think he'd have a greater impact if he'd play politics more. But he is able to take extremely liberal votes like voting against the Patriot Act before it was trendy to do so and still get reelected in a purple state like Wisconsin. His constituents like his independence and he likes being independent. But he is no conservative or even a moderate. He is an independent thinker. And he has more political guts than anyone else in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clonecone
December 9, 2009 2:41 PM in reply to PeninsulaMatt
It doesn't take courage to be a contrarian.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 9, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to PeninsulaMatt
"He is truly a maverick. "
The m word again. Sounds like a fancy word for just being a total selfish non-team player jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
December 10, 2009 12:56 AM in reply to PeninsulaMatt
I agree with you. He's not a party hack. He's one of the most principled people in the Senate. I've always admired him - even when I've disagreed with him. Wish there were 99 more with his intelligence and integrity; the Senate would be a respected and effective governing body, instead of the dysfunctional chamber of whorers it is now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 9, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to clonecone
You're thinking of the wrong guy. Check your facts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 9, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to clonecone
He's a DINO because he's more liberal than most Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 9, 2009 1:58 PM
I wonder if industry lobbyist know the particulars on the array of options of this deal?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 9, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to Indie Pro
They should. They're writing it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
December 9, 2009 2:10 PM
So after all the jawboning and all the compromising...they have exactly the same number of votes as before. Am I missing something? I'm beginning to think the reconciliation route should be back on the table - if only to make those swing votes realize that their leverage is not unlimited.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 9, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Something that was mentioned once or twice, then dropped completely was the idea of stripping the public option from the bill, passing the bill normally, then passing the public option alone through reconciliation. Can anyone explain to me why this doesn't seem to be on the table? There are all kinds of excellent reasons to not pass the whole reform through reconciliation (the bill would wind up in tatters) but these reasons don't seem to apply to the public option, which by itself is a small, singular proposal that can be fairly easily justified as a budget-related measure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 10, 2009 10:14 PM in reply to mcc
Can anyone explain to me why this doesn't seem to be on the table?
Because Rahm wants it off the table, and always has.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 9, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
No matter what anyone says, it's the Repubs in the Senate along with trader Joe that need to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 9, 2009 5:04 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Yeah, let's make the government an entirely one party system. What could go wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
December 9, 2009 2:24 PM
Time is now to outlaw lobbying and vote all encumbents out of office. IF they don't want to give the general public an affordable option for health care then they need to be part of the general public that has to pay for their own health care. I am tired of my tax dollars going to pay for these D-bag's health care while I struggle to make ends meet paying for what accounts to no coverage at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 9, 2009 2:28 PM
How the Democratic Party can move forward with this is beyond me. When the individual mandates kicks in, and people forced to participate realize they have no public plan available to them and inadequate subsidies, the howl of discontent will be deafening.
And devastating to the Democrats.
The Democrats are suppossed to be the Party of Next Gen young voters. What will they think when they experience first hand the betrayal of being sold down the river like this?
For what? So people 55-65 MIGHT be allowed to participate in Medicare? If you think THAT is going to do anything for them, your smoking something REAL GOOD!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
December 9, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to willia451
I get something totally different from this. Obviously it's the GOP blocking this whole thing. If I'm a next gen voter, that's who I blame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 9, 2009 2:42 PM in reply to mass_murdock
Yes, but the Democrats have the power. If they don't get it done they WILL be blamed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 9, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to wbgonne
It's the rules of the Senate that are causing the Repubs to block popular votes. It was made to be a very slow body so things wouldn't be rushed through. My concern is that while things are stalled the Repubs are getting folks to change their minds through lies and fear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 9, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Well, if the Democrats had any balls they'd have the president using his power of persuasion to advocate for the public option. Or they'd change the Senate rules. Or they'd use reconciliation. Or they'd manually eject Lieberman from their caucus. Or . . . .
But they don't. Which is the real problem. You don't fight, you don't win. You don't lead and nobody follows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to wbgonne
They don't want a public option. They just want cover for bargaining it (and anything progressive) away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
December 10, 2009 1:06 AM in reply to wbgonne
My sentiments exactly. Especially about the PRESIDENT ADVOCATING, for Pete's sake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 9, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to mass_murdock
Obviously it's the GOP blocking this whole thing.
Yeah, Republicans like Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Baucus and Lieberman....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 9, 2009 2:50 PM in reply to mass_murdock
Democratic President, 258 Democrats in the House, 60 members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate.
The Democrats have TOTAL power. Over everything.
The Republicans can't even go to the bathroom without a permission slip from the Democrats. All they can do is whine, delay, and threaten.
And its the Republicans fault???
But you're right. The Democrats will try to blame the Republicans for the failures of their own caucus. No matter what.
Even if it's horse shit.
Might work. Probably won't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 9, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to willia451
If they truly believe it, it'll work. The Democrats need to get this thing passed, in whatever form, and declare victory with every chance they get. If they can get the Republicans to play defense after it's passed, the GOP is toast for at least a generation. If they back down and let the GOP up off the mat, then all bets are off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to runfastandwin
Corporate welfare and mandates are not good public policy. That's what pisses voters off, once they have to live it. That is what's going to burn Democrats at the polls.
They should allow Republicans to kill this, blame them and pass real reform, the way grownups would.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 9, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to willia451
Learn how the Senate works and you will change your mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 9, 2009 3:19 PM in reply to willia451
Social Security and Medicare had to be changed after they were first adopted. Hasn't it occured to you that the age can be adjusted down later to include more folks? This could very well be the back door to universal coverage.
Think about it!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 10, 2009 10:23 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Tanjaouli already answered you in this thread:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 9, 2009 2:49 PM
If a bill isn't passed, it will be followed by the implosion of the remainder of the President's agenda. That would be far more devastating to the Democrats prospects for picking up "Next Gen" voters than the as yet unknown impacts of the compromise under discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 9, 2009 2:50 PM in reply to Dorn76
This was a reply to Willia, the Neo guy, above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 9, 2009 2:59 PM in reply to Dorn76
What makes you think the same dynamic we're witnessing now with healthcare, won't translate over into the rest of the President's agenda? We're already seeing it on things like Card Check and Climate Change legislation; as well as Financial Regulatory Reform.
I take the other view. Unless we hold the line on healthcare, THAT dooms the rest of the President's agenda.
And the line on healthcare has always been, NO Individual mandates without a strong public option.
If we give that up, the downstream impact on other legislation initiatives will be immense and immediate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 9, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to willia451
Thank you for saying that/ I thought I was the only one who felt that way. Once Obama caves on health care he is crippled. Climate change/energy? Forget it. Health care is the minor league compared to the energy companies. They will eat Obama's lunch once they know he's a pushover.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to wbgonne
I think he's getting exactly what he wants. Industry money in '12. Triggers that are never pulled. He's a man with convictions but no courage to back them up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 9, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to Dorn76
Apparently, that has been the Democrats' and Obama's thinking from the outset. Just give me a piece of paper to put my name on. Any "bill" will do. Then we can declare victory. The Conservadems obviously knew from the outset that Obama would roll over and they played their hand like they held all the aces. Now we're supposed to pretend that the Democrats accomplished something major in health care. I don't think it will work because the people they are trying to fool aren't stupid. They -- we -- are informed and skeptical.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 9, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to wbgonne
Speak for yourself, exhibit one, Sarah Palin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 9, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to runfastandwin
It isn;t Sarah Palin the Dems must worry about. It is their own base. That is far more problematic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to wbgonne
Dems should be pitching to smart voters on the left and digruntled voters with legitimate grievances on the right. Populism as defined by Chomsky and others is neither left nor right. Unfair, devisive and wasteful legislation is just that. If I were a Sen or Rep, I wouldn't want my name attached to this bill 5, 6 years from now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 9, 2009 2:52 PM
We are attacking the wrong thing. We (meaning the individuals at the base) should be attacking the Senate rules, not any one Senator.
The idea that the Senate needs 60 votes to pass anything is ridiculous. That rule is what we should be arguing against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
December 9, 2009 3:18 PM in reply to Darrius
Um, and who can change the rules?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
December 9, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to Darrius
Your are so right. Too many Americans have no clue how our government works. That's exactly how the Repubs want it to be too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
December 9, 2009 2:55 PM
Darrius, agree except for Traitor Joe. Always a good idea to attack him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 9, 2009 3:18 PM
Near as I can tell nothing has changed. There's going to be a bill, with a watered down "public option" designed to implode, but maybe the design will be flawed and it will actually flourish. And the Democrats will own it. As long as they declare victory, loud and long, no matter what is in the bill, they will wind up the winners and the Republicans will wander in the wilderness for 40 years, perhaps forever. With them gone, we can truly get to the heart of the matter, which is Medicare for all. That's why I am supporting wholeheartedly whatever they come up with. It's just another step on a long and winding road, but it's a step forward so it's a good thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 9, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to runfastandwin
That's fair. And I can understand why you might feel that way. But the opposite is also true. If we deliver individual mandates, with no strong public option, its also fair to say there could be a horrendous backlash; forcing an implosion and worst case, a backout.
Hard to see how that could be a good thing for the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to runfastandwin
I think it's all about well crafted legislation. That's what wins elections, long term (and short, if you are bold and cunning).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 9, 2009 5:10 PM in reply to runfastandwin
hey, a pony salesperson
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 9, 2009 5:11 PM in reply to runfastandwin
Yeah, and with the amount of round the clock coverage this bill is getting, no one will ever think to question the Dems on their whole "we won" strategy. And merely chanting "we won" over and over will convince the base that hates this bill that they actually did win. Moreover, merely declaring victory will instantaneously convince a public that will see next to no benefit from this bill for at least three years, if it passes, that such is the case. Please.
Your scenario is hilarious in its naivete and its ridiculousness. This bill is becoming more unpopular by the day, including amongst the progressives that make up the Democratic base, and this bill will do nothing to change that, particularly when almost no one will see an immediate benefit. The whole "wandering in the wilderness for 40 years thing" is laughable.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
Passing this thing will be a victory allright, but not for the party you are thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 9, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to masanf
The second paragraph should read "This bill is becoming more unpopular by the day, including amongst the progressives the make up the Democratic base, and this compromise will do nothing to change that..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 9, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to runfastandwin
After this passes, if it does, expect to see the face of Barack Obama replace that of Pyrrhus of Epirus in the encylopedia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kali Star
December 9, 2009 3:49 PM
Feingold will vote for the bill. Even without a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 9, 2009 5:20 PM
After reading the analysis concerning how the picture is mixed and that the compromise may not bring the number of votes closer to sixty than it was before, I am scratching my head trying to figure out what this significant psychological turning point is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jeronimo Dan
December 10, 2009 2:47 PM
This whole bunch of crooks were push so hard to get something done before the end of the year by the White house, it became clear to anyone and everyone they were tired and fed up. No sleep, no off time, no time to get a good nights sleep, no time to throw your feet up and have a high ball and talk and laugh about anything but how to push HC thru and how to stop HC.
Everyone was worn down to be agreeable to sign off on anything and this is what we got, a half baked health care which enriches the insurance companies and put people that still can't afford HC fined, or put in jail and fined.
Regardless of party affiliations vote the incumbents out next election. There all worthless. They know nothing but lie, cheat, steal and empower themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?