A full 60 Democrats have now pledged to vote for healthcare reform only if it contains a public option.
In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (obtained by Firedoglake), the Congressional Progressive Caucus took issue with Sebelius's recent statement that a public plan was "not the essential element" of healthcare reform, and pledged 60 votes against final passage unless a public plan is included:
To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it.
We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President's signature, MUST contain a public option.
A previous, similar pledge by the progressive caucus included 50 members, so support for the public plan seems to be growing among House liberals.
Centrists have speculated that House liberals may demand a vote on the public option when a bill first goes through the House, but would eventually accept a conference committee compromise that lacked a goverment plan. This letter seems to suggest that's not the case.
The 2009 battle to reform healthcare in the U.S. is much more broad than the failed 1993 bid waged by President Bill Clinton's administration, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele alleged Monday.
The Republican leader charged that this year's proposed healthcare reforms would threaten to revamp the system in more profound ways than the ones proposed in the '93 battle, which was spearheaded by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.
"'HillaryCare,' such as it was called back in '92, '93, you know, was tailored in a specific way and had some very fine points that it addressed," Steele said during an appearance on Fox News. "This is much more broad-based."
"It's not just about insurance coverage," he added. "It's about the various ways in which you access the system, who gets to make those decisions."
"I think...that there are some differences that are very clear, in terms of the depth and the breadth at which the federal government wants to intrude in on this issue."
Steele asserted that like in the 1990s, the 2009 debate would turn on the issue of the cost of the reforms -- a key issue Republicans made of the Clinton-era reforms as they have in the Obama-era debate.
Lawmakers may look to airfare savings websites like Travelocity.com as a model for comparing health insurance policies.
Two congressmen said during an interview on CNN Monday that the travel reservation hubs could provide a model for consumers when they pick and choose the best and most cost-efficient insurance policy for themselves.
"There is a concept that Newt Gingrich has pushed forward with -- like a Travelocity-type concept, where you could go in and compare rates and compare what is offered in insurance plans," Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said. "That greater transparency will help lead to greater competition, and that is something that is badly needed in the health insurance market."
Interesting, Blackburn's more liberal Tennessee colleague said he's mostly in agreement on the need for such a hub to compare prices.
"The exchange would be an opportunity at a national level for people to compare the different insurance policies or offerings," Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) said, adding that the inclusion of a public option would keep those rates at a fair level.
Still, Cohen warned against hopes for a broader compromise on healthcare: He said Democrats and Republicans are "probably as far apart as the two sides of the Grand Canyon" on the issue.
Signals yesterday that the Obama administration may be willing to compromise on healthcare reform "heartened" House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican said Monday.
"I am heartened by what the secretary of Health and Human Services said yesterday -- that she doesn't think, necessarily, that a government takeover of healthcare is a necessary component of what the Obama administration is trying to do," Cantor said during an appearance this morning on CNBC.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that a public (or "government-run") option for consumers was "not the essential element" for a successful healthcare reform push by President Obama and his administration. That suggestion has prompted criticism that the administration had "retreated" from its previous support for the public option.
Republicans have long said that the public option would be a non-starter to win their support, though Cantor gave no hint as to whether or not the GOP would necessarily support any Democratic-crafted bill without the public plan.
The second-ranking House Republican also credited the highly-publicized series of town hall meetings taking place across the country for the White House's potential concession over the public option.
"The system of debate -- the town halls, the forums that have taken place -- I think have yielded a result in that the administration is hearing loud and clear that people in this country don't want a government takeover of their healthcare," Cantor said.
A healthcare reform deal abandoning a public (or "government-run") option for consumers could cost as many as 100 Democratic votes in the House, one House Democratic lawmaker warned Monday.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) asserted that rumored compromises on a Senate bill to win centrist votes would torpedo healthcare reform's prospects with liberal members of the House.
"If the president thinks he's cutting a deal to get Senate votes, he's probably losing House votes," Weiner warned during an interview on CNBC this morning.
The liberal New York Democrat said that healthcare reform would be essentially meaningless without having a public option made available for consumers.
Obama administration officials had subtly signaled during the Sunday morning talk show circuit that they may relent on their desired public option in favor of establishing healthcare cooperatives, an issue on which centrist Democrats and Republicans have expressed some semblance of agreement.
"If he says, 'Well, we're not going to have that,' then I'm not really quite sure what we're doing here anymore," Weiner said.
He added that he wouldn't vote for a bill without a public option, as well: "Not only I, but I think there's about 100 members of the House that you need to have something to bring down the prices."
Weiner mildly chided President Obama for his work to defend his healthcare priorities, arguing that the president had done a poor job of convincing senior citizens that the reform legislation would leave their Medicare coverage unaffected.
"Medicare's been used as the bogeyman," Weiner said. "And President Obama up to now hasn't done a great job of putting their mind at ease, and that's part of the problem."
When a conservative Democrat takes the time to promise that he will not "kill old people," you really know Democrats are struggling to maintain their footing on healthcare reform.
So it's pretty stunning that Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a leading Blue Dog Democrat, felt it necessary to make that pledge on CNN today.
"I will never vote for a bill to kill old people, period," he said.
For some context, here's Ross responding to the attack ads he says he's been seeing:
I read the newspaper this morning. $57 million has been spent in the last six months, most of it in the last 45 days, trying to scare folks. I saw an ad the other night on TV. It scared the living daylights out of me. But I went back and watched it again. It used the word "could" six times in 60 seconds.
[...]
I can tell you, I've laid down my set of principles, so I will not force government-run health care on anyone. If there ever is government-run health care, the first ones to sign up should be the president and every member of Congress, including myself. You should be able to keep the insurance you've got today, if you like it, and always choose your own doctor. No federal funding for illegal immigrants or for abortion, and no rationing of health care. I will never vote for a bill to kill old people, period. [emphasis added]
Just yesterday, Ross got a standing ovation when he bragged about standing up to President Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
The big story out of today's Sunday morning shows is the willingness of administration officials and key Senate Democrats to back off a public plan.
But how many liberal House Democrats will balk at passing a plan with no government option?
In July, at least 50 House Democrats pledged only to vote for a bill that includes a public plan. If they all were to defect, at least a dozen Republicans would have to cross the aisle and support the plan in order for it to pass.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.) summed up the progressive demand for a public plan today on State of the Union.
"It would be very, very difficult," for liberals to support a plan with no public plan, she said, "because without the public option, we'll have the same number of people uninsured."
Johnson continued:
If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured. The only way that we can be sure that very low-income people and persons who work for companies that don't offer insurance can have access to it is through an option that would give the private insurance companies a little competition. The private insurance companies have been in charge so long that I think they feel that nobody else ought to be able to do it.
Democrats should let the GOP kill healthcare reform, then use the issue to bludgeon Republicans in the 2010 midterms, says James Carville.
Here's Carville on CNN's State of the Union today:
Put a bill out there, make them filibuster it. Make them be what they are -- the party of no. Look, we spend -- the truth of the matter is, we spend about $8,000 per person in the United States on health care. The second -- the country that seconds the second most is Switzerland, they spend $4,000. That means you have got $4,000 per person more that we spend on health care, that is $1.2 trillion, 4,000 times 300 million. And you know what? Run on it. A lot of people -- and we're not producing any kind of results that double that money provides. Let them kill it. Let them kill it with the interest group money, then run against them. That's what we ought to do.
Is there really an electoral upside to what most Democrats consider a worst-case scenario (i.e. nothing gets passed)?
Then again, running on failed healthcare reform during the midterms didn't work so well for Carville's old boss...
Chuck Grassley is attempting to clarify his recent remarks that healthcare reform might lead to "pull[ing] the plug on grandma."
Reacting to President Obama's comments that the same Republicans who are complaining about the end-of-life provisions in the current House bill had voted for a similar proposal in a 2003 Medicare bill, Grassley said the House bill inappropriately ties of end-of-life decisions to cost control concerns.
"The issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending, and which also creates a government-run health care program, as the Pelosi bill does," Grassley sad in a statement. "Doing so escalates concerns about the rationing of health care, since government-run plans in other countries ration to control spending."
Read Grassley's full statement below:
"I've said for a long time and repeated last week that we all ought to consider how we want to be treated if we are struck by an incapacitating illness, and that advanced care planning is a good thing to do. As far as legislation goes, it's not the case that provisions in the Pelosi health care reform bill this year are just like provisions Congress passed in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. I've never called the Pelosi provisions a 'death panel.' The issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending, and which also creates a government-run health care program, as the Pelosi bill does. Doing so escalates concerns about the rationing of health care, since government-run plans in other countries ration to control spending. Putting end-of-life consultations alongside cost containment and government-run health care causes legitimate concern. This context and the details of this year's proposal are different than the 2003 legislation, which covers advice from specialized physicians outside of any larger effort to control spending on health care. It's not fair to Americans who are asking questions to gloss over those facts and, in fact, end-of-life provisions haven't been part of ongoing Senate Finance Committee discussions as a result of those realities and the possibility of unintended consequences. On this subject and others, it's important that the debate is fair-minded and based on an accurate representation of the issues involved."
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
