As many of us have seen, the Public Option has become a HOT potato that is getting tossed back and forth between House and Senate. No one wants to put it into the HCR Reconciliation bill, but yet no one wants to get pinned down as the one who keeps it out. But before I get into a detailed discussion of the Public Options current "State-of-Play" after the jump /\, I would like to issue this call to action:
ACTION ALERT: Representative Scott Murphy (D - NY-20) originally voted against the HCR House bill, but now is non-commital with regard to the Senate Bill and the Reconciliation Fix Bill. So yes he is a KEY SWING VOTE, and he is asking for our input. I got an E-mail from him today asking me to fill out a questionaire on HCR, which I did. The questionaire simply asks for your E-mail address, so its not limited to district residents (I don't live in his district).
Therefore, PLEASE GO HERE and fill outs Scott's questionaire so we can swing his vote our way.
If you haven't been following the Public Option Soap Opera ("Days of Our Option", or "General Public" or "As the Public Option Turns" or whatever) this past week let me get you up to date:
- The Senate 41 - The campaign in the Senate to get the Public Option a vote under Senate reconciliation rules is up to 41. I know the whip count now shows it to be 51, but I will explain later why I think we have 41 commitments and the other 10 are iffy, at best.
- The Durbin Roadblock - Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said earlier this week that the Public Option cannot be allowed in the Reconciliation bill since it would complicate things in the Senate and he would have to "whip" up votes against it, in order to insure passage of the reconciliation bill. After, much uproar from progressives, Durbin soon "clarified" his remarks.
- The Durbin Potato Toss - Durbin "clarified" or flip-flopped on (however you choose to characterize it) his previous remark saying that he was referring to the possibility of the Public Option be introduced by amendment in the Senate. In this situation he would try to defeat it so as to avoid having to send the reconciliation bill back to the House (ping-pong) for another vote, since each additional vote would greatly increase the risk that the bill could fail. However, he, somewaht inexplicably added, that if the House sent over a Reconciliation bill with a Public Option in it, he would "whip" for passage of such a bill in the Senate, again to avoid a third vote. I say inexplicably because he did not have to add this part to explain his earlier remark, he chose to add it. He knew that his added remark would clearly toss this HOT potato back to the House and squarely into Speaker Pelosi's lap.
- The Pelosi Toss Back - Soon after the second Durbin statement, a clearly agitated Speaker Pelosi stated that the House Reconciliation bill would NOT include a Public Option although she was very much in favor of the Public Option (to her credit Nancy has been a staunch supporter). She said the Senate voted it down once, and no matter what certain Senators might claim, she did not trust the Senate to have 50 +1 votes to pass a Reconciliation bill with a Public Option in it.
- The Saunders' Play - Senator Bernie Saunders announces that he will put forth an amendment from the Senate floor to include a Public Option in the Reconciliation bill if one is not included by the House. This being exactly what Senator Durbin was afraid of when he made his remark. So now Durbin may be faced with whipping up votes against the Public Option he is for, in order to avoid the worse fate of having to send the bill back to the House for a third vote.
- The Grayson Hail Mary - Representative Alan Grayson is now trying to introduce a separate Medicare Buy-In Public Option bill. While I applaud his efforts, a bill that is not part of the Reconciliation bill cannot pass this term because it can never get 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. Although I once thought such a bill could be introduced as a second reconciliation bill, it cannot, as explained to me by Casual Wednesday over at Congress Matters.
- The Whip Count 51 - The head of the Whip Count boldly announced last night that the number of Senators willing to vote for a Public Option went from 41 to 51 in one shot. While the first 41 either signed the letter or made firm statements of support, the additional 10 seem somewhat more dubious with vague statements or in some cases, just assumed as willing to vote for it.
So what's really going on? Why do some of the same people who say they are for the Public Option seem to be trying to stop it while also trying to not to appear as being the one who kills it? The truth is no one knows for sure, but I can speculate!
First, its clear that the White House is not pushing for a Public Option in the bill. If they were, Pelosi would put it in and Durbin would whip it through. Why they no longer want it in the bill is uncertain. Perhaps they worry that it could sink the bill in the House or the Senate. Or perhaps they want to limit the Republican's ability to claim this is a government take over of health care. Or perhaps it is part of some behind the scenes deal between the White House and the AMA or Hospitals who worry about a Public Option being like medicare and curtailing their income.
Nancy Pelosi says she won't put it in because the Senate does not have the votes to pass the Reconciliation bill if a Public Option is in it. Is she right? Maybe! If you believe in the secret deal theory, than some of the 51 Senators who are assumed to be in favor of the Public Option, are simply saying that to win progressive support when they know they will not be required to actually vote on it. It is however alos plausible that Pelosi does not have the votes for it in the House and does not want to admit it, prefering to blame the Senate. Although it passed the House the first time, Pelosi will need a slightly differnet voting block to pass an HCR Reconciliation bill due to the defection of some of the Stupak crowd. Since the most fruitful place for her to mine votes for the bill is among the blue dog caucus, she would likely have to leave the Public Option out of the bill to win their support. Unless it boiled down to one vote and Dennis decided he would vote yes if a Public Option were in the bill. Not much chance of that.
The play by Senator Saunders may offer some reason for hope. We will have to see how it plays out, but if Bernie does not back down, the Senate leadership may beg Speaker Pelosi to put a Public Option in the Reconciliation bill she sends to the Senate. Why? -----pause--- In order to protect certain Senators from having to cast a vote on the Public Option by itself. This group does not want to vote for it or against, they just want to be let off the hook.If they vote against it, they run the prospect of a progressive challenge ala Blanche Lincoln style. However, if they vote for the amendment and it passes, it means another vote in the House, and nobody likes that prospect. So if Bernie doesn't buckle, things could get interesting.
So what should we do now?
Not Give Up!
Continue to call or E-mail Senators Haygan, McCaskill, Harkin, Rockfeller, Kohl, Begich, Baucus, Warner, Web, and Byrd,(listed here) and ask them to come out with clear public statements indicaing that they will vote for a Reconciliation bill with a Public Option in it. If Pelosi can be shown that the votes are there in the Senate for a PO, she will at least lose that as an excuse for not including it.
Also, contact Speaker Pelosi and remind her that the Public Option still has the support of a substatial majority of the voters and it deserves to be in the bill.