THE HILL
 

Another Independent could be a spoiler as Reid moves forward on healthcare reform bill

By J. Taylor Rushing - 11/09/09 06:00 AM ET

With a pronounced independent streak to match his political alignment, Bernie Sanders of Vermont may be another headache for Democrats trying to cobble together 60 votes for healthcare reform in the coming weeks.

At a time when most attention is being paid to the Senate’s other, more well-known Independent, Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman, it is Sanders who could end up playing spoiler for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). As Reid struggles to find 60 votes that will unite on procedural votes, his party’s centrists are pulling the healthcare bill politically rightward while Sanders is staking out a far-left position.

Asked if he will support Democrats on procedural votes once the healthcare bill hits the Senate floor, Sanders was repeatedly noncommital, twice telling The Hill that he intends to push for a bill that includes a government-run, public-option insurance component and refusing to guarantee his support on cloture votes.

“All I’ll say for now is that I want the strongest public option possible in the bill,” Sanders said. “Beyond that, we’re going to have to look at what develops.”

Pressed further, Sanders’s office also offered no guarantees.

“He is pleased that Sen. Reid has said that the bill will include a public option and he looks forward to seeing the detailed legislation,” said a Sanders spokesman.

Sanders caucuses with Democrats, and usually falls in line with the party’s philosophy. But like Lieberman, he can stray on a whim — and on healthcare, his insistence on a public option may force Reid to reach out for another Republican vote even if all other Democrats support procedural votes.

In recent years, Sanders has bucked Democrats on procedural votes for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), on multiple immigration reform measures and on funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, among other issues. In all, a Washington Post voting scorecard shows him bucking Democrats on 10 cloture votes in 2007 alone.

Democratic leaders say Sanders behaves differently from the party’s other centrists, such as Evan Bayh (Ind.), because Sanders at least usually notifies leadership whenever he intends to cast a procedural vote against leaders’ wishes. Bayh often doesn't.

“Bayh surprises us," said one senior Democratic aide. "But we usually know what Sanders is thinking, and he's pretty consistent. We think he'll be with us when it matters."

Yet since Sanders usually follows the lead of Democratic leaders, other observers say he is likely simply being stubborn as part of an effort to win some kind of concession for his state, as many senators do.

“I'd be surprised if Sanders decided to be a thorn in the leadership's side on healthcare,” said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor who covers the Senate for The Cook Political Report. “On the big issues, he is generally with them.”

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/66903-another-independent-could-be-the-spoiler-as-reid-moves-forward

Comments (85)

Reform will get passed but it remains to be seen to what extent. Personally I have watched friends this year lose their job, heath care, dignity and sadly their life due to the lack of health care. I don’t understand the posters in here that believe all of this is ok. We are Americans and we are supposed to take care of our own. Eventually, probably sooner than you may think, my story will be your story and you too will lose someone you know or care about due to the lack of health care or the denial of proper health care for the sole purpose to keep stockholders content.BY JN7854 on 11/09/2009 at 07:26
We need more Senators like Bernard Sanders of Vermont to stand firm on a robust public option. We cannot allow the health insurance industry to call the shots on health care reform. The so called "Blue Dogs" have sold their souls to the insurance industry and they need to be replaced with Senators with a progressive vision come 2010 and 2012.BY Victor on 11/09/2009 at 07:35
@JN7854I think all Americans, irrespective of their political leanings, can agree that lowering healthcare costs and increasing coverage are good things. The problem is that the bill recently passed (barely) by the House is ill-conceived, based as it is solely upon far-left ideology as opposed to sound policy. It includes no common sense elements of reform such as tort reform or interstate healthcare plan competition, but plenty of newly-enabled bureaucracy, oppressive mandates and plenty of new taxes. In its current form, the bill does not represent "reform," but rather a long-cherished liberal goal of expanding the federal welfare state, at a time when the country is already fiscally bankrupt and Medicare/SS have $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities on the books.BY Guy Jones on 11/09/2009 at 07:58
i have a question on the federal funding on abortion. I keep hearing absolutly no federal funding will be used for abortions but than I have heard that there are exceptions such as in the case of rape incense and if the mothers life is at risk. I do not believe in abortion for any reason so as a tax payer my question is is there an exception to the federal funding for abortions? or am I not hearing this correctly I have read the bill and did see a section that says absolutly no federal funding will be used for abortions but it also uses the words with the exception of will you please clarify this for me thank youBY susan on 11/09/2009 at 08:15
In 1935 when Social Security was created we had 35 working for every beneficiary. Today it is 3 or 4. By 2040 it will be 2. As our population ages, more of our budget will be diverted to their care. Due to our healthcare now, children born today will have a 50% chance of living 100 years old. This will mean at least 35 years on Social Security and Medicare. When Medicare was created in 1965, its budget was $ 2B. In 1991, it was estimated to have cost $9B but instead cost $67 B. Social Security and Medicare our now in "crisis" because they are making up more than 17% or our budget. I would argue that our government has done at least as poor a job as the insurance companies in "managing" our care. I think creating of a "new" government option makes little sense when we have not fixed Medicare and Social Security. I think easy solutions to healthcare are to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, eliminate their exemption from monopoly protection, and eliminate denial due to pre-existing conditions. Most of the uninsured in this country are illegal immigrants, people who choose not to buy insurance, and individuals who are eligible for Medicaid but fail to sign up. Effectively, there are 15 M who are to poor to buy insurance and too rich for Medicaid. I think we fix that problem first.BY MAtt on 11/09/2009 at 08:33
Why are liberals so easily led??? You will hand over your freedoms for a little security every single time!!! The high cost of health care could be fixed so easily, and so cheaply, and without government intervention…and yet too many of you keep believing that Government will solve all your problems. I hate to inform you that Government CAUSES your problems, and then they sweep in and make an even bigger mess trying to fix what they broke in the first place…all the while blaming capitalism for failing us. Wake up liberals!!! All of you are like a bunch of whiny children who refuse to take responsibility for anything. We conservatives are sick and tired of paying for all of you, and doubly sick and tired of hearing you call us selfish and greedy for not handing over willingly what we worked so hard for. Mark my words, your free ride on our train is about to come to an end!BY Janice on 11/09/2009 at 08:57
The cheapest plan under this bill, will be 15 Thousand dollars by 2016.Punishment of 1 to 5 years in federal proson if you don't pay. Fines are between 25 and 250 thousand if you don't pay. Doctors are fined 5% of their salary if they give more than "minimal treatment". One of the czars said this was so "the old people must get out of the way." Daschle in his book said that developments of new treatments must be curtailed. This is straight from UN Agenda 21. Sustainable development requires culling the population from 6 Billion to 500,000. Please type in UN Agenda 21 at Youtube. We are called negative economic units and useless eaters. This is part of total control and subjegation. They are addressing the problem of Americans living to the age of 78. Look at history. Look at Stalin. Please wake up. The Green Agenda is about mother earth. This rationing ties into the GMO food agenda, no fossil fuels, food shortages via the biofuels destroying the feedstock. My God in heaven, whycan't you see the big picture. Please, I beg you to investigate.BY Lila Cardiff on 11/09/2009 at 09:04
Did I read the story correct in that the author is implying that Sanders is a Moderate? Natives of our fair state know that Bernie is a Communist pure and simple. He runs as an independent only because even he knows that a communist can't get elected in VT.BY Jon on 11/09/2009 at 09:16
Everyone should go to the web site www.usdebtclock.com and then explain how and why we should continue to allow the government to enslave our children and their children with insurmountable debt.Thanks.BY Steve Coplon on 11/09/2009 at 09:22
Janice, I respect your comments but I strongly differ with them. First of all, it was the prior Administration led by the Republicans that passed legislation (the so called Patriot Act) that handed over our freedoms and rights for supposedly more security. Secondly the Democratic Party did not cause the economic and fiscal mess were in. The policies enacted during the George W. Bush Administration took away accountability from the private sector and wealthy investors and as a result our economy went down. The prior President and his Republican Party members also did not wish to pay for the costs of the unnecessary war in Iraq which has made the world more dangerous, not less and is, along with the economic collapse caused by the prior administration responsible for the mess the current Administration has inherited and is trying to fix.BY Jason Platt on 11/09/2009 at 09:26

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

bloglogo

More Briefing Room »

More Congress Blog »

More Pundits Blog »

More Twitter Room »

More Hillicon Valley »

More E2-Wire »

More Ballot Box »

More On The Money »
You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.