home

Obama Or Snowe? Who Calls the Shot On The Public Option?

Bill Nelson votes Snowe:

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said [. . .] he expects "some version of the public option" to be in the final bill, though he said it may hinge on Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). "Olympia Snowe of Maine is quite key here," Nelson said. "And if her vote is critical in the future, then she may insist what is a kind of public option."

So the buck stops with President Snowe, according to Bill Nelson.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Or Reid? Who Calls The Shot On The Public Option In The Senate? | The Progressives' Trump Card On HCR: Reconciliation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Her vote (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:25:38 AM EST
    isn't critical.

    ARRRRRRGHHHHHHHH

    She's very vocal on the fact she will vote NO (none / 0) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    if a Public Option is in the final bill.

    I'm trying to figure out why the majority Democratic Senate Finance Committee passed a bill withOUT a Public Option to begin with.

    Parent

    NUCLEAR OPTION! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Watermark on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 05:25:50 PM EST
    Idiotic at best (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:46:10 AM EST
    What is this obsession with satisfying Snowe? One Republican doesn't qualify as bipartisan. There are about 250 Republican's in Congress. We get one vote out of the deal.

    Even if it did, so what. It makes no sense to trash a bill and your base so that you can have one opposition vote. Maybe they figure her vote will force the Blue Dogs to come along. How could they vote no on a bill that even a Republican voted yes on!

    I think your last line is what they have in mind (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    She is providing cover for the Blue Dogs.

    Which brings up the question - why are they running the show? I tend to think Obama sides with them.

    Parent

    Snowe (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    All women should envy her, so many men eager to satisfy her.  

    Parent
    Given the quality of the men (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    I do not envy her at all.

    Parent
    touché (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    I picture her (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    swatting them like flies in her mind as she sits there.

    Parent
    Best comment of the day (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    It was -- until ruffian's riposte! :-) (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:27:28 PM EST
    What Makes You Think Obama and Snowe Differ? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    When Rockefeller voted for BaucusCare I took that as an indication it was what the President wanted or at least that he didn't object.  That, to me, was what those "progressive" votes on the Committee told us.  There is no difference between Snowe and Obama on this issue.  They both are fine with BaucusCare.

    Or, let me put it another way, no way Jello Jay votes for BaucusCare if Obama pressured him against it.

    If Obama's views were vastly different (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    from Snowe's, would he still be so moony-eyed over the fact that she voted the bill out of committee?  Could someone with a commitment to real reform, to truly expanding the access to and affordability of health care, concede critical elements of legislation just to get one Republican vote?  How devoid of core beliefs does someone have to be to care more about getting the notch on the belt than on doing what's best for the people who desperately need help?

    No, no and utterly empty.

    I don't know why Harry Reid is still the Majority Leader, since he doesn't seem to represent the views of the majority over which he presides.  I don't know why Joe Lieberman has a committee chairmanship since all he wants to do is screw Dems over.  I don't know why there's no unity, no focus, no steel, no courage, no fight in these people.  Republicans pout and act like spoiled brats, and the Dems just give in.

    Now that we are in the majority, we've managed to go from helpless to hapless, from powerful to fearful of our own power, from weak to weaker.  I don't know who sucked the soul out of the Democratic Party, but I don't see it coming back anytime soon.


    Parent

    I wrote to my elected folks just this morning (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    asking them (particularly Maria Cantwell) why I should vote for Democrats when they are giving us Republican policies.

    It's time to put some fight in the D's. Make them campaign on a shoestring budget and prove to us they are willing to work to keep their jobs.


    Parent

    How I became utterly empty (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by hollyfromca on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    That would be a fascinating book to read.  I will never understand how these elected officials can act this way.  How do they rationalize this?

    I have a good friend who is now a first-year medical resident at the ripe young age of 47.  She is working in a poor community in New Mexico.  She is devastated by the flood of people arriving in the emergency room daily that she can't help because they delayed medical care for too long.  These are real people, not belt notches on some political score board.

    Parent

    Put another way (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    Would Obama be satisfied with a triggered PO? You bet he would.

    Parent
    Any bill will do (none / 0) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    All Obama wants is to be able to say he did what no other Democratic president has been able to do. It doesn't matter to him whether it's good or bad. He'll see it as good.

    Parent
    I see Olympia Snowe as (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    the stalking horse (equine, yes, but not the pony so many seem to have believed Obama promised).

    I think it will be her job, always with the threat that she could withdraw support, to make sure that even if no Republican votes for the final product, it will be as weak as possible.

    And the weak final product will be 100% Democratic - a big plus for the GOP in upcoming elections.

    Knowing that there would be no Republican support for reform, it just boggles my mid that Dems could not bring themselves to do health care reform the way it needed to be done, with the best legislation possible.  How many times do they have to make that mistake before they are deemed too stupid to be trusted with anyone's votes?

    Even worse (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    The only thing that makes Snowe critical in any sense is that Lieberman is probably a no vote. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

    Lieberman is not a no vote (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    He just wants attention.

    Parent
    I hope that's true (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    as annoying as it is.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    We can only go with what he says right now:

    LIEBERMAN: I've been saying for a couple of months now that I'm concerned, that I'm concerned that there's a danger that we're trying to do too much here and the president is trying to do two good things. But doing them at once in the middle of a recession may be hard to pull off. And the two good things are to bend the cost of health care down by changing a lot of the ways health care is delivered. The second thing is to cover some of the people, millions of people, who are not covered with insurance. So, this puts us in the position where you say, on the one hand, what we're about to do in adopting health care reform will, will reduce the cost of health insurance from what it would otherwise be and the other hand you say, oh incidentally, we're going to raise your taxes or cut your Medicare to the tune of $900 billion or a trillion. And people are beginning to think that maybe they'd do better holding on to what they have now.

    Lieberman added that he thinks "we should really focus on what's being called health care delivery reform." Asked later by Imus if he specifically supported Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) health care reform bill, Lieberman said, "no":

    IMUS: Do you support the Baucus bill?

    LIEBERMAN: Not, not, no. I mean, not the way it is now.

    IMUS: Ok, what about it don't you like?

    LIEBERMAN: Well, here's my concern, as I watch the way it took shape. And it goes back to these two things we're trying to do at once. I'm afraid that in the end, the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country because most of the people in our country have health insurance, either private or Medicare or Medicaid or veteran's benefits.




    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    There is no way that we are required to rely upon what an established liar like Joe Lieberman says "right now."  When he said during the 2006 campaign that no one wanted to end the war in Iraq more than he did, was your reaction "we can only go with what he says right now"?

    My opinion is that he is posturing because he likes to be the center of attention.  I certainly am not required to trust "what he says right now," and in fact I think it would be downright silly.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:54:47 AM EST
    I guess I'm coming from the place where I think ALL politicians are lying and posturing.  So I give Lieberman as much credibility as I do when Obama, Reid, or Pelosi say something. They've all been caught multiple times in whoppers, so why would I take them at their word any more than I would Lieberman.

    And my guess is no, he WON'T vote for this bill if it stays in the current Baucus form.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    that's the narrative that news has picked up: what ever Olympia Snowe wants is what the bill will have. So they are going to pass baucuscare.

    Rockefeller has done a lot of good work on this. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sweet Sue on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    It's probable that Rockefeller voted for the Baucus mess just to get it out of committee so the whole health care reform thingy doesn't die on the vine.

    Simple answer to a simple question (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 10:18:41 AM EST
    Who calls the shots?

    Snowe by a landslide. Whatever Snowe wants. Snowe gets. Be prepared for BaucusCare to get decidedly worse under the direction of Snowe.

    With Snowe's VP, Susan Collins, dangling the possibility of her support of BaucusCare with modifications, Snowe has been made the most powerful politician in D.C.

    But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the bill approved Tuesday by the Finance Committee needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs, and protect Medicare. Nevertheless, she joined her Maine GOP colleague Sen. Olympia Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.

    "My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support," Collins said in an interview. "I think this bill is far superior to the ones passed by the Senate (health) committee and the three House committees, but it needs substantial additional work." link


     

    If that's true... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs, and protect Medicare

    The Democrats on the committee are failing miserably at their jobs.


    Parent

    All of the above is true regarding (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 12:45:13 PM EST
    BaucusCare. And yes, the Democrats on on the committee failed miserably at their jobs if improving health care was their goal.

    Unfortunately, the so called improvements that Snowe and the Republicans want will do nothing but make the bill more of a give away to the insurance industry. Here are some of the improvements other than eliminating the public option that Snowe wants to BaucusCare.

    Snowe opposes a real employer mandate, and instead favors a disastrously stupid "free rider" provision. It could have serious consequences for low-income workers.

    She is against giving the exchanges the power to negotiate with private insurance companies. This is a provision that should help keep down the cost of health care. It would save individuals money and the government money. Snowe fears it is too much government involvement. John Kingsdale, who runs Massachusetts's exchange, called Snowe's insistence that the exchanges not have the power to negotiate price with insurance companies a recipe for disaster.

    Just today, during the committee hearing, she reaffirmed her support for "national plans." This would allow health insurance companies to sell national plans in any states. Individuals state would lose the power to regulate these insurance plans sold in their states. The national plans would be exempt from all minimum benefit requirements mandated by the state legislature. This has been for a long time one of the top goals of the for-profit health insurance industry. link



    Parent
    BTD - song suggestion for later (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 11:54:56 AM EST