
For the first time in the year-long debate over health care, House liberals have real leverage and are demanding changes to Senate legislation before they agree to charge ahead. Many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus would even like to see the public option revived and passed in a separate bill through the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.
But in a brief interview last night, one of the House's top progressives told me leadership isn't even considering it.
"I don't believe it fits in the reconciliation," said Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). "All that is is budget."
"I haven't heard why, exactly, but when [leaders] list the things that have budgetary components, the public option's not on it," Woolsey added.
That is likely to perplex and disappoint rank and file progressives. When Senate Democrats were gaming out the possibility of passing a comprehensive health care bill through the reconciliation process, they determined that the public option probably could meet the terms of the process' strict rules.
Still, both Woolsey, and her co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-CA) have pushed the issue. And additionally, 40 Democrats have signed a letter, authored by freshman Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urging the Senate to reanimate the public option.
"As Democrats forge "the path forward" on health care, we believe that passing the public option through reconciliation should be part of that path," the letter reads. "We urge you to favorably consider our request to include a public option in the reconciliation process."
So far, though, leadership doesn't appear to be listening. Woolsey is prepared for that, and she says that she'll introduce a stand-alone public option bill the day health care reform passes.
"But of course," she acknowledges, "that would take 60 votes over in the Senate."
shooter242
January 28, 2010 10:52 AM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
January 28, 2010 11:06 AM in reply to shooter242
Don't confuse Brian's sloppy analysis with the facts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 28, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to Xantar
Don't confuse shooter with a thinking commenter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
January 28, 2010 11:20 AM
This is the kind of thinking that has stalled this for 6 months already.
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
It's fine to have a lot of competing ideas to start out, but if you want to get anything done you have to coalesce around the possible.
It's time to prioritize. Get done what you can get done now. Deal with a PO later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
January 28, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Agreed, but could we please start coalescing around a simple majority in both houses of Congress? Why not get whatever we can with a simple majority and move on? I am also very happy to use procedural maneuvers to get as much into basket as possible. That's not politics, that's governing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Yogsoggoth
January 28, 2010 11:30 AM
Okay, mans be.
You want the Democrats to revisit the Public Option later?
The strip out the individual mandate.
Folks around here just don't seem to get that the idea of the government forcing people to buy a defective product from an industry that has proven it can not be trusted is political suicide.
The kind of thinking that really stalled this bill for 6 months was the search for the bipartisan unicorn. With a not insignificant assist from those Blue Dog Senators who have been bought by the insurance interests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
January 28, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to Yogsoggoth
Won't work. You cannot prohibit denial for pre-existing conditions without mandated coverage. If you can wait until you're sick to buy insurance, young and healthy people have a greatly reduced incentive to be insured. So you have more sick people moving into the pool and healthy people moving out. What happens to the cost when you do that? You move into a death spiral: as the cost rises you just provide more incentive for young and healthy people to drop coverage, and the costs increase out of control.
The Senate bill has a temporary medical loss ratio minimum. Make it permanent. Repeal the anti-trust exemption.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 28, 2010 11:42 AM
It only cuts the deficit, provides conpetition and keeps the insurance insudtry honest as far as applying savings found through the legislation to be seen in premuims and such.
Why would anyone want that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 28, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Indie Pro
It only cuts the deficit, provides competition and keeps the insurance industry honest...
oh, and is more popular than the Senate bill as a whole.
But the industry doesn't want it, so it must go!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tatere
January 28, 2010 1:34 PM
She "doesn't know exactly"?
Uh. What Caucus was that again? The Roadkill Caucus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 28, 2010 1:58 PM
Wait, what? She thinks that if this bill is enacted into law, she can actually introduce legislation that would amend that law to make it better? That's simply crazy talk. Or maybe it's adopting Republican frames. Or something. Not sure if it's impossible or just immoral but it must be one or ther other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 28, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Your sarcasm is unwarranted. If they won't do it now; they won't do it.
It may not be 'crazy talk' but it's pretty obvious there won't be any Republicans voting for it, and there won't be 60 democrats voting for it. It's either reconciliation or not at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
February 2, 2010 8:04 PM
As long as Woolsey et al remain realistic about their chances, there's nothing wrong with keeping the public option up for debate. For now we just need to pass the damn bill. But if the political winds shift in our favor, a robust public option could be passed as separate legislation, some years down the road. This is assuming that HCR passes this year, which Intrade believes to be possible, but unlikely. (33%).
Thanks to TPM for keeping us updated on HCR. Pass the damn bill!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?