OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Progressives Getting Tough on Health Care

August 18, 2009 - by Donny Shaw

Believe it or not, the Progressive Caucus is the most powerful single non-party caucus in Congress. It might not seem that way, since all we ever hear about is the power of the conservative Blue Dogs and how the Democratic leadership was forced to weaken legislation because the Blue Dogs threatened to block it otherwise. The progressives tend to fold, not wanting their desire for progressive legislation to get in the way of passing legislation that is better than nothing. But the Progressive Caucus outnumbers the Blue Dogs, 83-52.

The progressives are preparing to use their power to block legislation on health care. Yesterday, after President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND] said over the weekend that a public health insurance provider was not an essential part of reform and that it would be dropped in the Senate, House progressives came back and vowed to block any bill that does not contain a public option. Here’s a letter they sent to Sebelius:

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

We write to you concerning your recent comments about the public option in health insurance reform.

We stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is “not the essential element” of comprehensive reform. The opportunity to improve access to healthcare is a onetime opportunity. Americans deserve reform that is real-not smoke and mirrors. We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies’ good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality.

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.

We’ve been hearing from conservative Democrats in the Senate that the votes aren’t there to pass a public option. So, if the House can’t pass a bill without a public option, and the Senate can’t pass one with it, where does that leave us? Here are a couple interesting takes…

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight thinks there is a possibility of getting a public option through the Senate with only 50 votes. The key, he explains, is that the public option must be included in the underlying bill that comes to the Senate floor. It can’t be added as an amendment because it would be filibustered, and public option supporters don’t have the votes to break a filibuster. If it’s included in the bill, there will be a Republican amendment to take it out, but with 50 votes (and a tie-breaking vote from Joe Biden), the amendment could be warded off without filibustering. After that, it’s a matter of muscling the bill through a Republican-led filibuster to get to a final vote on passage that would require only 50 votes, again with a tie-breaker from Biden.

The trouble, of course, is getting the public option out of the committee process. The Senate HELP Committee has approved it, but the Senate Finance Committee is leaning strongly in the direction of an alternative health insurance co-op. It would probably take liberal members of the Finance Committee (Rockefeller, Bingaman, Kerry, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Menendez) to come out strongly against a bill without a public option, like the 60 House progressives did, to bring some version of the public option back to life in the committee process. With Republicans now coming out against the co-op plan, it’s possible to shut down the co-op plan with a liberal-conservative alliance in the committee.

Mike Lux of OpenLeft sees possibilities for passing a public option plan to President Obama for his signature even if the Senate doesn’t pass a public option when they take up the bill initially. Lux, who says he’s “been through a ton of these kinds of issue fights, both from inside the Clinton White House and from the outside,” says that legislative logjams like this can and do get solved. It’s just a matter of persistence. Specifically, he sees two options for getting the public option back in the conference committee and passing it through both chambers:

A. The first is that conservative Senators are given a fig leaf compromise on the public option, so that they can say to people they forced a compromise, and then are brought over with all kinds of other incentives that make them more comfortable with the bigger bill.

B. The second is that the conference committee simply breaks the bill in half, one half being the less controversial part that everyone agrees upon, the other being the public option and the financing, both of which can go through the reconciliation process. Then Obama and Reid muscle the 50 votes they need for support.
Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

  • Anonymous 08/18/2009 10:40am

    OpenCongress.org seemed promising, and I appreciate the hard data you supply. However, all opinion pieces and emails asking for help are more and more obviously partisan and focused on the Democratic-party-defined “progressive” side of issues, so I’ll have to look elsewhere for even-handed analysis of political issues. I’ll keep an eye out from afar.

    Cheers!
    Trent Larson
    (Login failed or I’d do this under my name.)

  • Anonymous 08/18/2009 3:42pm

    A fair and equitable health care plan for all Americans would be the plan our representatives developed for themselves. As written it will limit debate. We the people will accept unconditionally the same health care system that our esteemed legislators feel appropriate for them and their families.

  • Anonymous 08/19/2009 5:52am

    You are absolutely right 7:42pm. For Congress to write a bill that excludes them and other federal employees is deplorable. In one way or another we pay for their wages, pensions etc., but they still feel they have the right to take themselves out of any type of legislation that affects the rest of us. I have emailed and snail mailed all of my representatives in Congress asking why they feel they have that right and not one has given me an answer of any kind. If the people at townhall meetings have had the same experience I can understand why there is contention at those meetings. Raven

  • BOEMOR 08/19/2009 11:07am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    RICK OR BUBBA FOR PRESIDENT !!!!

  • Moderated Comment

  • Moderated Comment

  • Moderated Comment

  • Moderated Comment

  • Anonymous 08/20/2009 4:49pm

    Listening to Obama today, host asked him if illegals would get free health care and his answer was absolutely not, that it spells out in health reform illegals would not be elligble, then host asked him about law passed several years ago anyone going to ER without insurance couldn’t be turned away and if that bill would still be valid and he said it would be inhumane to turn anyone away that didn’t have insurance. If I broke a leg or thinking I had swine flu than it would be inhumane to turn me away from ER. This has been the practice if you don’t have a DR or insurance just go ER because you can’t be turned away. Illegals will still practice going to ER and we keep paying the bills for illegals.


OpenCongress is a free and open-source project of the Participatory Politics Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to increase civic engagement. The non-profit Sunlight Foundation is the Founding and Primary Supporter of OpenCongress.