Blue Dog Opposition To Public Option Crumbling?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 04:38:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ryan Grim:

The Blue Dogs have been surveying their membership over the last several days; coalition co-chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) has been collecting the responses. She listed the four top priorities that have emerged: Keeping the cost under $900 billion, not moving at a faster pace than the Senate, getting a 20-year cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office and addressing regional disparities in Medicare reimbursement rates. So, the Huffington Post asked, the public option is not a top priority? "Right, the group is somewhat split," she said.

Good news. Now, to the fight to insure it is a robust public option continues. Grim has more info on that at the link.

Speaking for me only

< Zelaya Claims Torture By Israeli Mercenaries With High Frequency Radiation | Breaking: Kent Conrad Opposes Government Run Health Insurance (Medicare) >

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.

Blue Dog Opposition To Public Option Crumbling? | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The public option (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 04:48:35 PM EST

could be a great way to keep that cost down, assuming it's good enough. Once again, a nexus of good politics and good policy.

Best legislation we could probably get (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:19:35 PM EST

would be to take the House bill with public option tied to Medicare rates + 5 and Medicare provider list and combine it with the slightly more flexible employer size eligible for the exchange in Baucus bill.


: It's bipartisan! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:25:05 PM EST

Clever move by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:15:07 PM EST

to sell public option tied to Medicare rates.

The CBO has estimated that tying a public option to Medicare rates could save more than $80 billion over ten years in addition to what would be saved from the public option itself. During the caucus meeting, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chair of one of the committees to pass a health care bill, dangled that cash in front of members who want funds to address regional reimbursement disparities.

: Conservative? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by waldenpond on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:34:45 PM EST

The public option is the conservative position for me. Blue dogs are hypocrites. They claim to be fiscally conservative yet deny the effect of a public option.

: Harder to sell when their (none / 0) (#10)
by oldpro on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 01:46:09 AM EST

rural areas are already penalized with low reimbursement rates for Medicare. They want equity first and I don't blame them. That tradeoff would lower the savings but it should be made, nevertheless.
Then...could be home free. Olly, olly oxen...!

Want to keep costs <$900B? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by s5 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:37:36 PM EST

Then switch the public option from Medicare + 5% to Medicare + 0%.

Maybe it's sinking in over in Bluedoggia that passing the most progressive bill possible is the best way to keep costs down.

Oh....how sad (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 07:06:43 PM EST

In spite of all the JournOList and DNC propaganda, nobody bought their bull$h*t in the blue states or even the red states.

And, they're feeling it (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:56:10 AM EST

Democrats Jarred by Drop in Fundraising

And while Obama is not at the top of the ticket in the off-year elections (which could account for some of the drop), the Republicans are catching up - especially among small donors.

Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.
The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.
The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior.
As the battle over President Obama's effort to overhaul the health-care system reached a fever pitch this summer, the three national Republican committees combined to bring in $1.7 million more than their Democratic counterparts in August. The pair of Democratic committees tasked with raising money for House and Senate candidates -- and doing so at a time when the party holds its strongest position on Capitol Hill in a generation -- have watched their receipts plummet by a combined 20 percent with little more than a year to go before the November 2010 midterm elections.

I'm willing to bet (none / 0) (#13)
by CST on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 09:16:52 AM EST

If they manage to pass a health care bill with a public option that will change a bit. There are a lot of people sitting on the sidelines right now waiting to see how this plays out.


Maybe (none / 0) (#14)
by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 09:39:51 AM EST

Until people realize that nothing will change for them until 2013 - and then it might be worse.


you are talking voters (none / 0) (#15)
by CST on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 09:47:06 AM EST

I am talking dollars. My guess is the people who give money are not the ones who need healthcare now. They are the ones who care about policy but can afford to give money. We've waited almost 100 years. Waiting 4 more is not ideal, but also not a deal breaker.

I'd much rather have a public option that starts in 2013 than a co-op cop-out that starts tommorow.


Voters = dollars (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:19:59 AM EST

As in, the small donors who are going in droves to Republicans (and many independents who have fallen out of "like" with Obama and the Democrats) - they are voters with dollars.

And I'd love to have a public option too, but my guess is, while you are willing to wait for it, many people can't wait for 4 years (or longer, because I just don't really seeing it happening with what's being proposed out there). I see lots of lip service being paid to the public option (Nancy Pelosi, depending on what day it is, for example), but it's not just going to happen - not in any real meaningful way.


: small donors (none / 0) (#17)
by CST on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:30:32 AM EST

are on both sides. My original point was I think the small donors who would be inclined to give to Dems are waiting to see what happens. The republicans are doing what the republican base wants them to do right now, which is obstruct. Therefore they are getting money. Once the Dems (maybe I should say if the Dems) do what their base wants and pass reform, they will see money start to come in.
My other point was, the people who are most concerned with waiting 4 years for a public option are probably not the ones who would have money to spend on political parties anyway.
As for the last, we'll have to wait and see. I am not as pessimistic as you are, although we probably also have different definitions of "meaningful".

Those Blue Dogs will turn Red with this one (none / 0) (#2)
by joze46 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:08:07 PM EST

Gambling in America has brought forth a huge, huge wealth of options imagine you can take your money and choose the way to bet it. But let John Q. Public ask for a Public option to stay well and healthy, but we can not???

Or, perhaps let's have lottery options in the health care. Not only get Health Care but a weekly or daily chance to retire...Hmmm. Talk about cool...

Excellent news (none / 0) (#8)
by s5 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 06:05:31 PM EST

Let's consider this the first proxy fight against Ayatollah Snowe.

(I like "Ayatollah Snowe" better than "President Snowe". Presidents can be held accountable by election, while Ayatollahs are granted divine right to overrule the democratic process.)

Rabid Blue Dogs (none / 0) (#11)
by Tom Degan on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 06:15:12 AM EST

Hey, Democrats! Although I left your silly party over a decade ago, my heart is still essentially with your platform and agenda. That being said, I would ask all of you to think of me as Dr. Degan, your loving and trusted family veterinarian. After a complete and thorough examination of your beloved pets, it grieves me to offer you this final diagnosis:

Your Blue Dogs must be put to sleep.

Let's stop kidding ourselves and face some serious and uncomfortable facts here, okay? Any chance of serious health care reform is about as dead as the nails the GOP has spent the last nine years hammering into their own coffin. And the biggest irony? It was killed by a coalition of "Conservative Democrats" - or DINOs: Democrats In Name Only - which begs the musical question: With donkeys like these, who the hell needs elephants?

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY