217: Progressive Block Close To The Magic Number For A Robust Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:07:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Hill:

[Lynn Woolsey] told House Democrats that they have nearly enough votes to pass their preferred version of health insurance reform. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told a closed-door caucus meeting that the group’s “whip count” showed it had 208 of the 218 [BTD - There are currently only 433 House members and thus the magic number is 217] votes needed to pass what liberals call a “robust” public option. That version would link rates to Medicare plus 5 percent.

Blue Dogs and others don't like that and are disputing it but it is obvious that the momentum is strong. Oh BTW, the Progressive Block seems to have really learned how to play this game.

Speaking for me only

< The Federalist Public Option And Political Bargaining | The Federalist Public Option: What Would Trigger An Opt Out? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

217: Progressive Block Close To The Magic Number For A Robust Public Option | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Blue Dogs willing to pay more for less (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:32:36 AM EST

Public option with Medicare +5 rates saves $115 billion and the Blue Dog negotiated rates saves only $25 billion. The Blue Dogs would like the government to pay $90 billion more than they have to. Why?

Centrists, especially Blue Dog Democrats, don't like the public option, echoing Republican concerns that it will not just lower rates but put private insurers out of business.

No lower rates for you folks. More cost to the government and you for a health insurance program. Blue Dogs need to protect their true constituents, the private insurance industry.

We should start sending them (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by nycstray on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:37:41 AM EST

our medical bills for payment. They could directly support their "constituents" that way . . .


This has become obvious (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:34:44 AM EST

And indeed it is why they are squirming so much.


Sure it is obvious (none / 0) (#5)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:48:45 AM EST

I just like to point out the extent of their hypocrisy at every opportunity in case someone has missed it.

Heck might even give someone a few talking points when discussing the issue with the very own Blue Dog.


: I'm with you (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:56:12 AM EST

Your bolded portion of the quote (none / 0) (#11)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 04:06:48 PM EST

is what caught my eye in the article, too!

For what those companies have done to people for the past decades, if they can't compete in business, they simply shouldn't be in business.

I wonder how things would change in private insurance if they could be held accountable in wrongful death suits for the people they insure, but refuse to cover.


Learning how to play the game (none / 0) (#1)
by Demi Moaned on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 10:12:01 AM EST

Better late than never. And let's hope it's a beginning rather than an end.

BTW, do you know if Alan Grayson is one of the 208? It was you who usefully pointed out the other day that despite his emerging iconic status on the left, he had not yet embraced the public option. If he has corrected that defect, it's worth noting, IMO.

: Grayson and many others (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by magster on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 11:38:33 AM EST

I think fall in the camp of robust PO supporters. What Grayson hasn't done is vow to vote against health reform that is lacking if that is what is put in front of him. I would bet he's one of the 208.

: I'd also like to see a list (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Cream City on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:00:26 PM EST

of those who have stood firm -- to see if my Rep is still on it . . . and stays on it to the end. That will determine whether she sees my name on her donor list again, next time around. :-)

: Btw, good to see Rep. Ron Kind (none / 0) (#9)
by Cream City on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 12:02:51 PM EST

quoted in the link as standing firm and taking leadership on this -- as he will be staying in Congress, having stepped out of running for governor. He can stay in Congress and work on name recognition like this to run for the Senate seat that may open all too soon.

Color me impressed (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 02:55:55 PM EST

If and when they can get something like this that will actually survive conference and pass with a veto-proof majority.

This is really nothing to be surprised about. The Dems were going to come home on this - it's good politics (and good politics for the Blue Dogs to have put up the fight they have - they can go back to their constituents and say "I tried"). It's also good policy.

No 2 only to sticking it to republicans.. (none / 0) (#12)
by pluege on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 05:10:55 PM EST

sticking it to vichy dems like hoyer and pelosi and obama.

Go progressive caucus!!!