TPMDC
30! Five More Democrats--Including Durbin--Say They Support a Public Option Through Reconciliation
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Share
Send to a friend!
Five leading Democrats--including Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin--have publicly announced that they will vote for a public option if it's offered up during the budget reconciliation process, where legislation can pass with a majority vote.
"Sen. Durbin has long been a supporter of the public option," reads a statement from Durbin spokesman Joe Shoemaker to the progressive groups Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and Credo. "I don't know whether the votes exist in the Senate right now, but if the House version of the public option came up for a vote in reconciliation Sen. Durbin would vote yes."
Similar statements were also issued from four other senators: Patty Murray (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
To be clear, these are not signatories to a letter--circulated by the three groups--advocating the public-option-through-reconciliation strategy. PCCC co-founder Adam Green put it this way: "We're accepting clear statements that if the public option comes up for a vote, they would vote yes. We're debunking what [White House Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs said last week, that the votes don't exist -- they do...we'll prove it."
So far, 24 members have signed the letter, and five have issued statements indicating their support for passing a public option through reconciliation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also stands behind the idea in principle. That means Green et al. have 20 members to go.
Comments (42) | Join the Conversation!
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The BBQ Chicken Madness
March 1, 2010 10:19 AM
That means that support for a PO through reconciliation now has the support of a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 1, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
But not a majority of Senators. Big difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
March 1, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
At this point we only need 50 + 1 democratic senators to vote for it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TruthWithoutFear
March 1, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Progressive Party
Actually, I believe, 50 Senators period -- tie-breaker goes to VP Biden.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ripper McCord
March 1, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
The 30 constitute a majority of the votes needed for passage, however.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 1, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to Ripper McCord
When they had 15 they had a majority of a majority of the votes needed. They need 50. They have maybe 45. You can call it anything you want, except you can't call it enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
March 1, 2010 10:19 AM
At this rate, they should have fifty just after the Republican majority is installed next year! Oh, wait...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CommieBlaster
March 1, 2010 10:21 AM
If you want to see where Obama’s going, you have to watch this Brand New, Viral
OBAMACARE - YEAR IN REVIEW video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rv7aW3NF7w
This Hilarious and Shocking Video provides a Fast-Paced Look at the No-Lie-Too-Big, Socialist Ideologues Who Now Run Our Country.
MUST WATCH!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
March 1, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to CommieBlaster
You're funny! You should do kids' birthday parties!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
March 1, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to converse
Heh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
puarau
March 1, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to CommieBlaster
Just watched your video: Learned nothing. Full of misrepresentations, anyone can chop things up and stick them back out of context, in a way
that can be construed to represent any bias. What has impressed me though are recent state polls that show that the senate HCR is unpopular, but many of the components are popular, holding support in the 60's percentiles. So go spin that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
March 1, 2010 10:35 AM
The magic number is now 20.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
March 1, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to TBender
Assuming that's "magic" as in "not real".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
March 1, 2010 10:58 AM
Wow! Great you tube, dude! They managed to round up every right wing loon in the country and got them to tell wholly unsupported lies about Obama! It's a miricle, I tells ya!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LFC
March 1, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to conniptionfit
conniptionfit sadi... Wow! Great you tube, dude! They managed to round up every right wing loon in the country and got them to tell wholly unsupported lies about Obama! It's a miricle, I tells ya!
That's not fair! Do you really believe your word "every"? There are WAY more right-wing loons than you could ever fit in to a single video. The count doesn't even equal the number of right-wing loons that go on Fox in any given month (week? day?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bidalah
March 1, 2010 11:05 AM
How many blue dogs in that 30? If the Public Option could pass without THEIR support it would already have done so.
I don't see any real efforts being made to pass a public option. By "real effort" I mean either a grass roots initiative in conservative states to show blue dogs that there is real support for a Public Option IN THEIR OWN STATES, or else an aggressive top-down initiative by Obama and the Democratic leadership to make the consequences of rejecting the public option worse then the consequence voting for it.
I see a real efforts in the opposite direction. Blue dogs are convinced, with good polling to back them up, that fighting for a public option would be electoral suicide. Meantime Obama is firmly ambiguous as to his support for it, and he left it out of his own formal plan. Both Reid and Pelosi who have been supportive in the past, now decline to push for it.
This letter being circulated is nothing more than election-year posing by liberal politicians wanting to prove their liberal bonafides to their own liberal constituents. That is perfectly understandable but counterproductive. When the compromises that must be made, are made and the Public Option is again rejected, progressives on the ground will be further demoralized going into November.
Senators who truly want a progressive agenda to succeed in the long term would do better to tout the very real and dramatic benefits of the health bill that can potentially pass, rather then the one that cannot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
govewood
March 1, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to bidalah
Um, so called Blue Dogs refers to a certain strain of House Democrats, not Senate Democrats. The PO has already passed in the House bill, a bill that many Blue Dogs voted for.
In the Senate, recall that the PO was in the HELP Committee bill, and in watered down form even in the Finance Committee bill. It didn't survive the melding process of formulating the final bill because Joe Lieberman publicly announced he wouldn't support cloture on any bill having PO or expanded Medicare as an alternative, for that matter (thus contradicting his long held position as restated only 2-3 months earlier). At that time, there were 54-56 Democratic Senators publicly for the PO choice as part of the health insurance exchanges.
Although I think Jay Rockefeller has a point when he says that the already passed Senate bill's requirement for at least one non-profit in each health insurance exchange pretty much mirrors the intent if not the fact of Public Option choice (PO's would ostensibly have lower administrative costs and thus lower premiums for a given level of coverage), the optics of PO would be an assuredly positive game changer for Democrats, politically.
A sidecar bill that, say, expanded Medicare and created the
Public Option choice in the exchanges, plus pay-goed it with implementing Social Security/Medicare taxation of unearned income of those getting that type of income at levels of quarter million dollars/single filer and half million dollars/joint filer would pass with majority rule or even with so called Senate "reconciliation" process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 1, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to govewood
"At that time, there were 54-56 Democratic Senators publicly for the PO choice as part of the health insurance exchanges."
Who? Who were these mythical 54-56 Democratic Senators?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
March 1, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I'm not convinced they exist either. They're like the Obama White House: We'll say we are for a PO but when push comes to shove we're not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bidalah
March 1, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to govewood
Umm...Blue dogs is an informal term for conservative Democrats of both side of Congress. The PO was in the HELP committee bill, but was not in the Finance Committee bill. Instead Max Baucus championed non-profit cooperatives. Technically I suppose you could call these "public options" but you are the first person that I've seen actually do so. In any case most experts regard them as ineffective competitors to private plans, which would not achieve any cost savings.
The public option never had 54-56 votes by any count I've seen published. It may have had a bare majority after Reid allowed that states that wanted to opt out of it could. What was briefly quite popular was the idea of expanding medicare. Even some Republicans pricked up their ears at that before Lieberman decided his fellow Democratic caucus members did not even deserve to vote on that.
You are correct that some, though not most Blue Dogs in the House voted for a bill with a Public Option. But they also insisted on stringent restrictions on even the private funding of abortion. Pelosi and Obama have both publicly stated they will not agree to the Stupak Amendment again. If they don't climb down from that (and who here wants them to?), I don't see any Blue Dog participation this time around. Also the lone Republican to vote for it, has already stated he will vote no this time. His support was a significant source of political cover for some conservative Democrats who were on the fence before.
THE VOTES JUST AREN'T THERE!
I supported the Public Option but it has become the Democrats white whale. It is the ideal that has become the enemy of "good enough so just pass the damn thing already".
To AJM- What is a "Halter"? Should I be insulted? Let me know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 1, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to bidalah
Main Entry: hal·ter
Pronunciation: \ˈhȯl-tər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hælftre; akin to Old High German halftra halter, Old English hielfe helve
Date: before 12th century
1 a : a rope or strap for leading or tying an animal b : a headstall usually with noseband and throatlatch to which a lead may be attached ->(doesn't sound like much fun)
2 : a rope for hanging criminals : noose; also : death by hanging ->(sounds like even less fun)
3 : a woman's blouse or top that leaves the back, arms, and midriff bare and that is typically held in place by straps around the neck and across the back ->(I'd go for this one)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bidalah
March 1, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Yea, if those are my choices, I think #3 sounds right too. However a quick Google tells me that AJM's one-word repost was probably referring to Bill Halter of Arkansas who has announced is running to the left of Blanche Lincoln in the primary precisely because of her health care vote. I would agree this is exactly what we need to see if we really want a Public Option.
However, I maintain we're not seeing it in nearly enough quantities to make the Public Option viable this year. Also Reid and Obama have already publicly endorsed Lincoln.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 1, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to bidalah
Halter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
March 2, 2010 10:16 PM in reply to bidalah
Blue dogs are convinced, with good polling to back them up, that fighting for a public option would be electoral suicide.
I'm calling bullshit on your "good polling" unless you're able to post numbers and a source. I have never seen a single poll, in about 8 months of polling, where the public option polls at less than 50%, whether in national or statewide polls. And usually the PO commands supermajority support anywhere from the high 60's to the mid 80's, among Democrats and independents, liberals and moderates -- and even (e.g. in Quinnipiac 2010-01-14) about a third of conservatives and Republicans supporting it. I think I've seen one poll (Rasmussen?) where the PO polled at 51%, which is the lowest number I've seen.
I'm willing to be corrected, but without numbers, methodology, actual questions, and a source, like I said, I'm calling bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 1, 2010 11:09 AM
30 Democratic Senators worth time and contribution.
The rest can look to conservative-liters to help them!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
March 1, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Exactly how I feel. That's why I think it's important that the progressives force a vote on this even if they are going to lose because we deserve to see where they really stand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
March 1, 2010 11:34 AM
I actually continue to agree with Jay Rockefeller that the Senate (and House) would do better to have a strong insurance regulatory framework, rather than a weak, meaningless public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
March 1, 2010 11:39 AM
A Medicare buy-in would be a lot easier (and quicker) to implement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 1, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Rich in NJ
Not to mention difficult for Republicans to mis-characterize. I don't understand why they didn't go this way in the beginning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 1, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I think it was because the Public Option was supposed to have the same political advantage you're crediting the Medicare Buy In. It was supposed to be politically easier. Who would've predicted the GOP would rally against it to save Medicare. (Or whatever they're doing) Not that the GOP are really the problem with passing it.
Much of the same Democrat and lobbying interests that wouldn't want a public option, are also against a medicare buy in. (Which is a more robust and effective public option isn't it?) So a mass medicare buy in would be even harder to get support for even if, (but really because) it's better.
The limited one that Lieberman killed, or one that just reduces the age bracket even further than that, may get more support; but it isn't same policy as a PO. Still, there are plenty who prefer it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 1, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
a Medicare Buy-In is harder to sell to industry supporters of HCR. Doctors and hospitals especially. Specifically, Medicare reimbursement rates are supposedly lower than private insurers. I have an idea that might alleviate that problem and posted it before on blogs, not sure if on TPM.
My Idea is this, and keep in mind that this seems like a kool idea if everyone is allowed to buy in. Scale the reimbursement rates inversely by age of the patient. Some examples.
Starting in the age group under 65, in 5 year intervals...
ages 60-64 Reimbursements = Medicare + 5%
ages 55-59 Medicare + 10%
ages 50-54 Medicare + 15%
I'm not sure where this scale should end but at some point it should be compatible with private insurance.
A plan like this married with individual mandates, subsidies, and common sense initial participants (self employed, unemployed, and very small business) and I think you'll find support from many parties involved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 1, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to njlib
Most large insurers extract hefty discounts from in-network providers already. That's what it means to be in-network - they've agreed to the negotiated rate. If you have insurance from a large provider and use an in-network provider you'll typically get statements that list the "billed amount" and "allowed amount". The allowed amount is as much as 30% less than the billed amount. The provider cannot bill you for the difference. So if you're comparing Medicare rates to the in-network rates, there isn't as big a difference as you might think. The idea that was floated was Medicare+5%, which probably isn't that much lower than the negotiated rates. At most it's Medicare+10%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
March 1, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Much of the same Democrat and lobbying interests that wouldn't want a public option, are also against a medicare buy in. (Which is a more robust and effective public option isn't it?) So a mass medicare buy in would be even harder to get support for even if, (but really because) it's better.
-----------------------------
Exactly right. The better it is for the public, the worse it is for the insurance industry and medical industry, hence the more they will oppose it. And we all know, corporate interests will win out over citizen interests every time with this congress. At best, 25 to 40% of the Democratic caucus is willing to stand with citizens over corporations on any given issue; and far less of them are consistent about it -- such as Kucinich and Sanders -- and those consistent members are marginalized and made fun of by the media and pundits. It's just like Bill Maher says: Our country has a conservative party, the Democrats, and a lunatic party, the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 1, 2010 12:51 PM
Call me when it's 50... OKAY?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 1, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to Jackster
I hear ya
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
March 1, 2010 12:59 PM
i don't care if they sign the bennett letter or not; just vote yes in an up or down vote; and let the no's campaign on it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
March 1, 2010 1:16 PM
The day we see anywhere close to 50 votes for a PO through reconciliation, is the day we're going to see a GOP stop filibustering the bills currently on the table...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tomoly
March 1, 2010 2:04 PM
Don't rely on Durbin for anything. He is a demon sheep.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 1, 2010 6:42 PM
How many ways are there to screw this thing up? No matter the solution, there is always a stickler or two. There is no perfection. Pass the the already passed bills after reconciling them, then incrementally fix or improve the basic reform. Let the complainers complain while progressively getting it done.
Reconcilliation with a touch of progressivism, that's just what the doctor ordered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Altgeld
March 2, 2010 8:11 AM
The Democratic Party likes to write letters. This is what they did when they were a minority in Congress. They wrote letters when they controlled Congress but not the Presidency. Letters and eloquence are the weapons of minority parties and parties that cannot override a presidential veto. I am not blaming those who are signing the letter or supporting a public option except perhaps Rockefeller who says I support the public option, but it would be wrong to pass a public option by majority rule. The letter is a useful tool to build support, but Obama is making it clear he is fighting as hard for a public option as he has fought for regulating the people who drove the economy over the cliff. When Obama and the Senate Democrats don't pass laws when they are in the majority, there is a message to people who donated to Democrats and worked for the election of Democrats. It took some time to catch on, but I think I hear the message.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
September 6, 2010 8:42 AM in reply to Altgeld
Anyone who doesn't want to see their neighbor thrown in jail for failing to pay a health insurance premium.Archive
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 22, 2010 11:55 AM
Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?