The chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee, issued this statement today on reports that the White House is backing away from insisting that a government-run option be included in the health care exchange. "Any bill without a public health insurance plan like Medicare is not health reform."
The basic calculus here: the White House thinks that House Democrats won't be able to say "no" to a reform bill in the end, even without a public plan, and is going to try other inducements -- money for favorite programs, promises down the road, maybe even some threats and pressure -- to keep them aboard.
At some point, it might be worth somebody's time to investigate exactly why a plan that enjoys such broad public support might not be able to make its way through Congress. Or maybe I blinked and missed this elucidatory expose?
Its because the filibuster, and any Senate majority that tolerates it, has broken our legislative process.
Yes, there is such a thing as the filibuster in our political system.
The point is: Dems have 60 seats. Why can't they pass a very popular program among their own members? There seems to be a hidden hand at work here. Somebody should tell us more about that.
Kent Conrad has said they don't have the votes in the Senate, and he knows this because HE is one of those Democratic Senators who won't vote for a bill with a strong public option. Add to that Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and maybe 1-2 more and you've lost 60.
This is widely known, if not often reported. I would love it for these conservative Dems to be made infamous if substantive Healthcare reform fails, but the truth is they come from low-population, Purple-to-Red states, where special interest money goes a long way towards assuring re-election, so they're not particularly scared of a liberal backlash. Primaries are one possibility, but running a solid Lefty vs. a Centrist Republican in a general election in these states would be an equally risky proposition.
How do you address this brand of obstructionism (where special interests really only need to buy off the centrists in the Senate)?
1) Campaign Finance Reform
2) End the Filibuster (Which requires 67 votes in the Senate, in which case you'd be able to pass pretty much anything you want anyway)
Why wouldn't it be better to keep the public option and bet that a few Senate Democrats won't support a filibuster to prevent an up-or-down vote on a conferenced bill that has already passed in the House?
Why not show the people where the cracks are in the system rather than bend-over backwards to avoid them?
so the white house is willing to threaten/"induce" liberal dems if they have to, but they wont put that same kind of pressure on blue dogs and DINO conserva-dems?
No public option,no second term. The President has to get a hold of these senate Dems and do some serious arm twisting or he will lose his base. What a flip flopper.