TPMDC

Dem Senators Call On Reid To Use Reconciliation To Pass HCR With A Public Option

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!


Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Progressive senators are calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use reconciliation to end the health care reform deadlock. In a letter co-signed by Sens. Mike Bennet (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) today, the group calls on Reid to use reconciliation to pass health care reform with a public option attached.

"Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public's perception of it," the senators write. "The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices."

The senators who signed the letter offer four reasons why Reid should use reconciliation to pass a public option now.

First, they say a public option will be more fiscally responsible than the bill that was passed out of the Senate. "Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system," they write.

Other reasons include increasing competition in the health care marketplace and the "strong public support for a public option, across party lines."

On the subject of reconciliation, the senators write that the process has been used in the past to pass health care programs in a partisan environment.

"The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term 'reconciliation' in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation," they write.

A version of the letter's full text appears on the Progressive Change Campaign Committee Website.

Reid spokesperson Jim Manley gave TPMDC this response to the letter: "We are continuing to work with the house and the white house to pass the strongest bill possible."

Additional reporting by Christina Bellantoni


Comments (34) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

February 16, 2010 2:46 PM   

I'd like a gold-plated Cadillac but I don't think that's going to happen either.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 2:54 PM    in reply to PorkBelly

If you don't ask forget it. Lieberman sure likes to be asked.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 17, 2010 12:23 AM    in reply to PorkBelly

59% of the American people want the public option too...but they don't want the senate healthcare bill. How the WH plays this out determines whether the Dems lose both chambers in the fall - and they will absolutely lose both the House and Senate if they fail to pass a progressive healthcare bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

February 16, 2010 2:51 PM   

I do not think this story accurately describes the letter.

The letter says nothing about the mainline health care bill, and says nothing about ending gridlock. It for some reason talks only about the public option as a standalone proposal and is seemingly agnostic to whether the health care bill itself passes.

One other unusual thing about the letter: The letter calls for a "strong" public option. This terminology is usually taken to refer to a medicare-linked public option. Can we actually pass a "strong" public option using reconciliation? Last I checked the strong public option was unable to get 50%+1 votes in the House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 2:52 PM   

Great idea...but a letter to Reid is no way to get anything done in the senate! No Balls Harry will probably return their letter as "undeliveable"!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:08 PM    in reply to Progressive Party

Harry Reid will do whatever 29 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus say he should do. That's what being "Senate Majority Leader" means. Do that which a majority of the caucus demands and do not do that which a majority of the caucus will not approve.

It's much more fun to act like he's Dictator of the Senate so he's easier to simplistically blackhat, but he's just the Commissioner of Baseball-he's got exactly as much power as a majority of his caucus will let him have and not one iota more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 4:50 PM    in reply to Progressive Party

Heh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 2:55 PM   

Four Senators. Count that number again. Four. Out of 59 Democrats. Needing 51 for passage, they're only short, oh 47 senators.

What world are these dems living on? I want the public option as much as the next person, but let's be realistic. This shouldn't be news. Call me when it's closer to that 51.

This is why we can't get this done. We have dems living in bizarro land trying to resurrect the public option, dems who want to do nothing, dems who want to pass the bill and dems who want to scale back. All of those dems are not coordinating with each other.

Again, this goes back to my problem with those blaming the WH. The WH could be leading all it wants, but without the legislative will, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

user-pic

February 16, 2010 6:20 PM    in reply to calchala

Yes, except the president is the only one with a public megaphone and he needs to be out there constantly cheer leading, arm twisting, convincing the public and counteracting the ever-constant rightwing noise machine. He's done some, especially more recently, but in my opinion, not enough, and made too many early deals with the devils in this affair -- the insurance industry and big pharma.

I'm not unrealistic. I still have some fading hopes something will get done and still think it would be better for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, and hope to improve on it later.

I also recognize that even if Obama had been screaming every day, there is still a real good chance he would have lost to the corporate interests which control congress. Indeed, the WH probably figured as much and didn't want to expend the political capital for a losing cause.

But that's why I voted for him, because I thought he would at least fight the good fight. If he fought and lost, the base would still be with him and eager to fight again; now they are demoralized.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 17, 2010 12:23 AM    in reply to calchala

What world are these dems living on?

This one.

That's a link to the Quinnipiac poll, 14 Jan 2010.


Nationwide sample, conducted 5-11 January 2010, 1,767 registered voters, MOE +/- 2.3%

Question #28. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?

Results (culled from answers - visit the link to see the full spreads and breakdowns)


Support: 59%. Oppose: 35%. DK/NA: 6%.
Democrats: Support 82%. Oppose 12%
Republicans: Support 34%. Oppose 59%.
Independents: Support 61%. Oppose 34%.

Liberals (self-described): Support 85% Oppose 11%
Moderates (self-described): Support 69% Oppose 26%
Conservatives (self-described): Support 35% Oppose 59%

Support fairly evenly spread across all age groups 18-55+ (spread 53%-68%)
Support even more evenly spread across all income groups $100K (spread 57%-62%)


****

Read those numbers again. 69% of MODERATES support a public option. 61% of INDEPENDENTS support it. Good God, over a third of conservatives, and over a third of Republicans, support it.

And compared with the popularity of Congress as a whole, of the Senate in particular, or of the health care proposal in general, now largely identified with the Senate bill, these numbers aren't even in the same league. And the approval numbers for the PO are also better than those of the President, but by a smaller margin.

So maybe these folks have only 4 Senators, but they seem to have a whole lot of the American public behind them. As they have since at least last summer, since poll after poll after poll consistently demonstrates numbers like these, and have for months.

Maybe these 4 Senators are on to something that the rest of the Senate, the leadership and conservadems in particular, haven't quite caught on to yet -- or don't think they have to care about. (After all, their seven-figure lobbying jobs await them the second they leave office, whether voluntarily, like Bayh, or otherwise.)

Maybe it isn't these 4 Senators who are out of touch, or, to quote calchala, "living in bizarro land."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 17, 2010 11:34 AM    in reply to gharlane

CAN WE TATOO THESE STATISTICS ON TO RAHM EMANUELS FOREHEAD?!?

IT'S ABSURD! PEOPLE WANT REAL REFORM, NOT WATER DOWNED DRIBBLE NEGOTIATED WITH PHRMA. THAT'S WHY OBAMA AND HCR IS SO UNPOPULAR.

http://dumprahm.wordpress.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 17, 2010 12:38 AM    in reply to calchala

The only people living in bizarro land are the idiots who think its a good move to pass a healthcare bill that MANDATES people buy their health insurance from corporate monopolies, with no alternative (like a public option) and no real cost controls (like a public option). What do you think voters reactions will be when they're forced by this bill to buy ever rising insurance premiums? A mandate with no public option is an insane death trap for the Democratic party and anybody who advocates it is either a republican, affiliated with the insurance industry, or just plain dumb.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 17, 2010 8:21 AM    in reply to loudprogressive

And the rate hikes that are going to happen are starting to pop up. Just wait until the insurance monopoly gets all of these trapped customers. Premiums will go through the roof. And to top it off, Big Pharma will like raise the price of all pain killers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:11 PM   

A cynic might suggest this is part of a pre-approved effort to drag the initial negotiating position to the left in advance of their passing the bill the House and Senate have already agreed upon following the HCR C-Spanorama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

February 16, 2010 3:20 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

This appears to have been organized by PCCC (they just sent out an email about it titled "Huge public option news!"). I think if PCCC had any cares whatsoever in the world other than whether the public option passes they'd have shown some public indication of it by now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:14 PM   

Once again, it requires the ability to TRUST the senate to do what they say they will...the one thing the past year has shown is that no number of american dead or sick is enough to curb corporate profits in the senate. We would most likely be stuck with the massive corporate welfare bill they put together in the smoke filled rooms and nothing else. (sorry reid, your evil and inept) There will be no healthcare for at least a decade at which point the Ins co's will of priced themselves out of customers and they can be killed off with impunity. For those sick like me, we're fucked, but I'd rather die than let wellpoint/anthem take 30% off the top of any money I give them and then stick me with an unusable policy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:19 PM   

On a related but larger issue: the absence of any discernible strategy by Obama or the Democrats in Congress, as anyone else thinking what I am thinking?

I'm thinking: that Obama should bring in Bill Clinton as "fixer", to provide political and message strategy for the White House, which would then start knocking heads among the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Such an arrangement should be informal and completely opaque, if not completely secret. Clinton's advice would not be available to anyone but those that need to know, and there would be no "fingerprints" on anything (taking a page from Dick Cheney).

I hear Obama has just the channel already in place to handle this. Something to do with the Secretary of State.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:28 PM    in reply to CareyInLA

I think the first step would be to DUMP Rahm Emanuel.
He is the death of the Democratic party because once again, Rahm’s proved moving to the CENTER accomplishes nothing.

What seems to be missed on Rahm and the White House is that the Independent voter is NOT a Centrist. Independents are skeptical of the political system because it is so ineffective and as a result, they refuse to identify themselves with one of the two political parties. Rarely are meaningful pieces of legislation ever passed or campaign promises fulfilled. An Independent shakes his or her head, and says: “Throw the bums out.” Case in point: HCR.

SO CAN WE PASS REAL REFORM NOW?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:41 PM    in reply to Tommy Douglas

First, I agree with you on dumping Rahm. I heard recently that dumping Rahm is no longer a matter of "if" but "how".

Second: I think it's pretty clear at this point that weakly trying to push through HCR in the midst of a global economic meltdown was essentially fiddling while Rome burns.

And that too, will factor into the voting decisions of "independents" this fall. Not to mention the base.

There were in fact much more urgent priorities, but the administration was unable to comprehend it.

Without a strong public option, this bill is little more than a corporate giveaway. It is time to accept defeat, forgive the Pres, and help him move on jobs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:31 PM   

If they can get 50 votes (plus Biden), do it. But if not, don't hang up or delay over it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 3:43 PM   

If they do it, the GOP is still DEAD!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 4:06 PM   

Nice letter, too bad there is not enough will power in the Senate to actually follow through.

http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 4:07 PM   

They don't realize how much this would fire us up. I would have a fire under my ass if they did this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 4:58 PM    in reply to theone718

They don't care. As somebody up above wrote, it's all about lining their own pockets and ensuring their own job security. Democrats in general seem to believe being Republican is the only way to get reelected, all evidence to the contrary.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 4:10 PM   

Anyone else remember back when progressives were upset by Gillbrand's selection to replace Hillary because she was deemed too conservative?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 4:51 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I sure do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 6:02 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Well she behaves more like a Progressive than a Conservative so there's little reason to be mad. A Democratic majority that campaigns on progressive issues and governs conservatively gets the opposite response. Seems like a predictable result.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 4:11 PM   

"We are continuing to work with the house and the white house to pass the strongest bill possible."

Translation: We won't sacrifice our outdated, undemocratic parlimentary rule worshipping for critical national legislation.

And Obama won't pressure them to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 5:11 PM    in reply to tommyo

They haven't taken reconciliation off the table. They all but openly sneered at Republican demands that they take reconciliation off the table, just as they've laughed off every other "demand" the Republicans have made with an implied threat that they won't show if they don't get their way.

If you're mad at Obama for not demanding that they sweep away the filibuster, maybe you can tell me where you think they'd get the nine Republican votes (assuming Nelson, Lieberman and every other member of the Democratic caucus voted for it) it would take to do that. Because until you can do that, you're basically mad at him for not demanding things that are impossible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 5:44 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

i don't know if this is accurate (i know exactly nothing about parliamentary rules), but here's how the 'nuclear option' is described by wikipedia ... sounds like you really only need 51:

The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 5:16 PM   

What the heck, people; 4 senators is better than 0 senators. Remember when we all thought Obama had blown the primary race (several times as I recall)? Maybe this IS the beginning of a change, maybe it will go nowhere, but if you call yourself a progressive, wouldn't it be a good thing to encourage your senators to support this?

I'm calling Sen. Merkley's office when I get home. I didn't vote for him in the primary, but since he took office, I have been increasing impressed. There are a few good guys in the Senate - but they need to hear from all of us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 17, 2010 2:05 PM    in reply to Powkat

I agree. Keep calling them. They need to know they have support.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 5:18 PM   

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretsky

Thanks to these Senators for taking a shot!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 16, 2010 5:36 PM   

At this point, Harry Reid's shown that he couldn't win at legislative poker even if fate dealt him a royal flush. Which it did in November 2008.

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