PO under the weather, but not dead. I can see a path to a modest PO

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

(Like many posts on DU, this is an OPINION piece. I don't have a crystal ball as to how many senate votes exist for different proposals. My sense from combined reporting is that support for a fairly tame PO is around 50 votes plus or minus two or three.)

The most robust PO in the House (so far) is still kind of a hollow symbol since very few can opt for the option. It's not a PO that will reshape the HC landscape but at least it's a beach-head.

So the strongest PO we are realistically discussing isn't all that great.

The WH will not veto or decline to sign a bill without a PO, but on the other hand, President Obama is going to sign pretty much anything that lands on his desk.

So the question is what congress passes.

Any PO that passes the Senate will be, at best, a triggered up faux-PO. Oddly, that would be better than nothing because then the conference would be reconciling two different POs versus summarily imposing one from the House side.

If a weak PO is added in conference then we are in arm-twisting range. There are circa 48-52 Senate votes for a weakish PO and we only need 50 for a conference bill. (Biden=+1)

The game is the same as it ever was. If a weakish PO is added in conference it will pass and be signed. A robust PO added in conference will probably fail.

Whether the votes "are there" in the senate, I think it is close enough to cajole, threaten and bribe our way up to 50.

[villager]

1. think you're probably right, and then hopefully in the inevitably weak PO can be "bulked up" later..

n/t

[ProSense]

2. "So the strongest PO we are realistically discussing isn't all that great." Not true.

The public option Rockefeller put forth is tied to Medicare, and Pelosi is exploring replacing the current option in the House bill with a similar option.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Well, that would be great

But since Rockefeller's proposal didn't fare all that well with Democrats in the Finance amendment vote I don't see that as something that would have a path to 50 even if passed in the House and added in conference.

I don't remember the exact vote on Rockefeller but it was one-sided.

[backscatter712]

7. We're probably gonna get Schumer's version at best, more likely, the opt-out version.

Opt-out still seems to be on track to be the compromise of choice when the screaming's done.

My prediction: all the dire doom and gloom that's being broadcast by the corporate media will be replaced tomorrow by Nancy Pelosi, House progressives, and some Senate progressives saying "Public option or else!" and the public option will make yet another miraculous comeback from the dead.

They keep killing it, and it keeps coming back. It won't go away, though it's certainly gonna be watered down. Triggers are unlikely to fly very far - the perception (and a correct perception) that the trigger will never be triggered, so a triggered public option is equivalent to no public option, has grabbed hold in the public. They're gonna have to let at least something actually come into play, and that most likely means a public option with a state opt-out clause.

And that's not a bad thing - the states that don't opt out get some competition immediately. The states that do opt out do so with their governors and legislatures looking like assclowns for doing it, and they'll come around in a few years after they get tired of bad, expensive health care, and keep throwing their politicians out.

I'm with villager - it doesn't matter if the public option's weak, just so long as it is in the bill, not negated entirely (say with a trigger), but actually taking effect with at least a few people in a few places. It'll be a lot easier to incrementally strengthen it once it's in place.

[bluestateguy]

9. If you have to declare something "dead" over a dozen times, it's probably still alive and kicking

Good points.

[ind_thinker2]

14. Repubs also think some form of PO will be in final bill

http://www.rollcall.com/news/39619-1.html

[CTyankee]

23. I'm with you on this. Even a weaker PO is better than none.

Once we get the foot in the door, it will be easier to get the whole body in, even if it is a limb at a time. I can see that starting with the limited access to the PO could easily lead to a voter outcry for inclusion for the rest of us. And I don't think it will take long. Medicare was accepted real fast. The ONLY thing we really have to watch out for is future watering down of the PO by Congress. There'll be an effort to kill it slowly thru budget cuts. Eternal vigilance will be the key there...

[bluestateguy]

3. The House liberals are the key

I think the way to get the PO is for the House liberals to demand it as a litmus test for their votes. They can't pass a bill without them. The White House wants any bill that they can claim victory with, and don't want to invite comparisons to the Clintons of 1994, who came up empty-handed. So if the WH has to choose between giving the liberals what they want and no bill, they will go with the liberals.

The only leverage they have is to say they will only vote for a PO bill. If they say "well gosh, we favor the public option and really hope the bill has it, but we'll go ahead and vote for a bill without one", then that is an open invitation to taking the provision out. So they have to hold firm, with enough strength in numbers to present a show of force that will only allow a bill with a PO out of the House and on final passage.

I think that's the way to get the PO.

[sandnsea]

5. I don't have a crystal ball either - but I know the faces in the ball

And they live in these states. What are we going to do about getting these 12 votes? AK, MT, ND, SD, NE, AR, CO, FL. What is Connecticut doing about Lieberman? When are we going to target the right people?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6805175

[ProSense]

8. Begich, Tester and the others at the top support a public option. n/t

[andym]

6. Well the insurance companies have basically said they WILL raise premiums

after health care reform passes. Their latest research is their "cover." Therefore, either a public option tied to Medicare rates, open to many, or tight premium caps will be necessary to prevent a political and social disaster.

Hopefully, congress people (especially the conservative Democratic senators) understand the seriousness of the threat.

[SpartanDem]

10. Harkin said yesterday there were 52 votes for the public option

no one has said they wouldn't vote procedurally even Lieberman who opposes doing health reform at all this year has said open to voting procedurally with the caucus. I think the Senate will pass either the HELP bill PO or go for the opt out plan.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. I've been taking both sides with a grain of salt

For instance, after the closed door meeting the other day Harkin said there were five anti-POs in the caucus. Other reporting of the meeting put the Dem anti's at about 12.

There is probably a nuanced perspective or two in the difference. What's a PO? What constitutes oposition? etc.

My best guess is 52 for a very weak PO and about 47 for HELP.

[ind_thinker2]

12. Health Care bill that results in no control over insurance premiums will be disaster

for democrats, A Solid PO is most viable solution to rein on insurers.

As Gov Dean said, we should even offer Medicare to ages 50 and above in short term until exchanges are operational.

A PO with state opt out in conjunction with Snowe Trigger looks like a good alternative. Though tiggers are not clear.

[TheWraith]

13. Huh? Seems to me the public option is in pretty good shape.

Even if it doesn't make it into the final Senate bill, the House is quite adamant, and the Senate's ready to go with a reconciliation bill.

[Better Believe It]

15. A modest "public option" will be a meaningless public option.

If the strongest public option currently in legislation will not kick in until 2013 and will not be available to all employers or indivuduals!

Read the fine print.

The Republican Senator in charge of writing the Senate bill, Snowe, and her fellow conservatives (the right-wing Mormon Reid and Baucus) will make sure that a strong or even modest public option won't see the light of day.

[Laelth]

16. Opinion piece? I thought you meant "Onion" piece.

It actually makes sense if it's an "Onion" piece. Otherwise it's ...

Without a robust public option (to me that means a plan that's projected to cover 50+ million Americans within five years), we'd be better off doing nothing.

That's my opinion.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Scarsdale Vibe]

17. A robust PO added in conference still has to make it past a filibuster.

Plan A is to convince Snowe that a public option in which states can opt out is acceptable and get her guarantee on cloture in case a conservative Democrat switches to the other side. If it's not common knowledge that Snowe will join the Democratic caucus on cloture in case of Liebermanesque betrayal, the possibility of Liebermanesque betrayal increases significantly, and the Democrats would be fools to put forth a bill that depended entirely on the goodwill of Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman et al.

Plan B, if Obama is serious about a public option and won't accept Snowe's trigger, and Snowe can't be moved to a stronger public option, is reconciliation. The only people who know whether or not this is viable are those WH aides that have talked to the Senate parliamentarian. Talking about reconciliation right now weakens the negotiating position with Snowe.

Plan C, if Obama accepts Snowe's trigger and she can't be moved towards a more robust public option, is to pass a health care reform bill with a trigger with minimal fuss and almost no chance of being defeated.

Which path is taken depends on Snowe, Obama's view of the significance of the public option, and the possibility that health care reform will die again for 20 years. Because insurance reform is more important to saving lives, improving health, and reducing catastrophic medical costs than the public option is, I'd put my money on a trigger. If we get anything better than that, it will be because Olympia Snowe was convinced to agree to it.

[Better Believe It]

20. What filibuster? Who is threatening to filibuster? And if someone is, so what?

[Scarsdale Vibe]

22. You can wish the conservative Dem assholes in the Senate didn't exist, but they do.

Quite a few would be philosophically and electorally quite comfortable switching over to the Republican caucus. Most have hardly any seniority, so they'd just be trading the political power that comes from being a member of the majority for guaranteed re-election in perpetuity.

[Clio the Leo]

18. The trick is, they make sure what lands on the President's desk isn't a piece of crap...

.... of course, how we define crap is open to debate. ;)

[BzaDem]

19. This is incorrect. We need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a conference report.

Or rather, we need 60 votes to end debate on the report. It can't be changed, but it can be fillibustered.

The only way we can pass it with 50 votes is if we use reconciliation, which is a different process. And that process wouldn't allow ending discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions (which would make the public option unsustainable).

[Better Believe It]

21. You are incorrect.

We need 50 votes to pass a joint House/Senate conference report without reconciliation in the Senate. 60 votes are needed to end at some point a real Republican filibuster if one actually materializes during Senate debate on the final report.

Let the Republicans filibuster and make them filibuster on the Senate floor if that's their wish.

That will be buried!