The Great Public Option Flip-Flop: Sanders Will Now Work To Deny the American People an Up-or-Down V

[slipslidingaway]

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/the-great-public-option-flip-flop-sanders-will-now-work-to-deny-the-american-people-an-up-or-down-vote/

"Previously, I have explained how if just one single senator that supported the public option offered an amendment during reconciliation, it would force an up or down vote on the matter. This means it would only take 51 votes to include a public option, and, at the very least, we would finally get to see on the record the senators that stood up for the American people, and which ones were fighting to protect the profits of the health insurance industry. Only a week ago, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) promised to stand up, if no other Democratic senator would, to offer a public option amendment and provide the country with a measure of accountability on the issue.

Well, it did not take long for Sanders to break his promise on the public option. Sanders has completely flip-flopped, and will now work to deny the American people the up-or-down vote that they deserve. From Burlington Free Press:

The National Journal reported on its Web site Thursday that Sanders and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., would shelve an amendment to the bill during the reconciliation process in exchange for assurances the proposal would be resurrected later.

A statement by Will Wiquist, a Sanders spokesman, confirmed the report. “Bernie is a strong supporter of a public option and will continue to work to create a system that provides competition for private insurance companies as a way to hold down skyrocketing premiums,” Wiquist said by e-mail. “He thinks majorities in the House and Senate would support a public option.”

“Given the very delicate situation at this time and the challenge facing Speaker Pelosi as she rounds up votes, Bernie and other senators have concluded that offering a public option amendment now could undermine the entire process.”

This, of course, is nonsense. The House must first pass the current comprehensive Senate bill, so it can be signed into law before the reconciliation package can go to the Senate. Once the big Senate bill is law, whether the reconciliation bill passes or not will have very little affect on health care policy in this country. Given that worrying about possibly derailing only the reconciliation package by trying to include a very popular and important improvement to the bill is silly. Also, why would you worry about a public option derailing the bill if you believe, as Sanders claims, that it does have a majority of support in both chambers of Congress.


This is an incredibly disappointing moment. Is there not one single member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate that thinks the American people deserved to know if their senators really support the public option or care more about protecting the profits of the private insurance companies? I just wish our representatives would have the decency not to lie to their supporters about what they will do, and not make promises they quickly break.

If the supporters of the public option won’t fight for it now in a reconciliation bill, when it has the best chance of passing with a simple majority vote, why should we ever trust their promise of getting to it “later?”

[xchrom]

1. Can we have an 'under the bus' forum.

Cause I can't keep up.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. At this point I think all of these outrage posts are misguided.

It is time to join with Senator Sanders, our only openly socialist representative in congress, in supporting this bill. Opposition is now wrong headed. All you are doing is helping elect republicans and make things worse. What we need to do now is get to work making the laws enacted by this bill better, and that means electing more progressives like Sanders to congress. We are not going to do that by helping the republican party run against health care reform.

[babylonsister]

4. Thank you. nt

[laughingliberal]

6. Outrage on this is not misguided but it is misdirected

Allowing any amendments opens the door for endless procedural delays from the Republicans. The only way we had a real shot would have been for Pelosi to put it in the reconciliation bill. She refused likely acting on orders from the White House.

[bigtree]

19. the Senate has the Byrd rule which limits changes in language which isn't germane to the budget

Speaker Pelosi has worked to make certain her bill doesn't have language which conflicts with the Senate rule so that it will match up without need for amendment.

[laughingliberal]

23. That is a stretch

The public option would be one of the easiest provisions to get under reconciliation. It is germane to the budget. Reid has said he will try to get it attached to another bill which can be passed under reconciliation.

This was not the reason Pelosi wouldn't put it in the reconciliation bill.

[bigtree]

26. right

. . . it's a WH plot. Got it.

[laughingliberal]

27. Whether it is or not, the Public Option would stand up to the Byrd rule

The reason Sanders can't offer the amendment is to prevent Republicans from offering endless amendments. This was reported last week that allowing any amendments at all would open the door for this.

We can't know for sure Pelosi's motives but the Byrd rule isn't the reason.

[aquart]

28. We elected a strong Democratic majority.

Please let's not applaud them for this...mess, betrayal, sellout.

They protected the insurance companies. We're still going to die for lack of healthcare. Not insurance coverage. Healthcare.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Obviously we did not do that at all.

We imagined we elected a strong Democratic Party majority. In reality we elected a weak compromised and corrupt party to a nominal majority position. The deal we got is what came out of that mess. The issue is not what could have been, it is what is and what to do about it. So I see the options as:

a) add fuel to the fire by joining in the Chorus of the Outraged, with full support from The ReFoxBag Party machine, gearing up for a toss the bums out 2010 congressional campaign;

b) support this bill, work to elect more Democrats and to keep the seats of those already in Congress, and then work to make the HCR better through new legislation;

c) do nothing and watch it all unfold from the safety of your computer.

I'm going with (b). I support this bill. I will work to elect more good Democrats to congress to make HCR better.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Are we going to continue to follow the bad advice that brung us to this point?

At what point do we demand concise clarity and competence?

I think the virtues of the bill in terms of public policy and the political need to pass it are two separate issues and should be thought of as such.

Whoever launched the campaign to require us to pass bad policy to win politically deserves a demotion, just as whoever devised the policy in the Repo party that the only way to win politically was to defeat any bill regardless of what it contains deserves to be demoted as well.

Both of these strategies have resulted in harm for people and the people who promoted them need to be repudiated in both parties.

Even the concept of a 'Public/Private Option is a failed construct designed to distract attention away from the time tested tried and true Single Payer model. If our leaders had used the public option as our fall back ace in the hole big program with 100,000,000 pre-enrollees, then OK. But our leaders completely bungled the battle, instead selling out policy in a blatant display of pork doling and and caving to the corporate interests. They all bungled the art of basic negotiation, instead showing all their cards from day one like babes in the woods.

Privitazation has left a lot of damage and pain in it's wake. When are we going to wake up and realize that socialistic social programs work best. Insurance is a socialistic system of risk mitigation. Why not just admit it and run it as such? much cheaper and easier, and no one has to do battle with their health insurance provider, or worry about health care.

The Public Option is the capitalists dream for Social Security. It's what bush junior advocated for SS. The public/private option.

The Public Option is a Republican Idea. That anyone would start with that as their initial bargaining position just boggled my mind last spring, I was like, why? Why not ask for more first?

But the fix was in, from the get go.

[Donnachaidh]

51. strong in Whose favor?

Certainly not the voters favor. They are handing the voters chains and telling them to get used to wearing them.

[laughingliberal]

3. This was pretty well known last week. If they allow amendments to the reconciliation package

it opens the door for the Republicans to begin a process of offering endless amendments. The only real way we could have gotten an up or down vote would have been to put it in the reconciliation bill. Pelosi, likely on orders from the White Hose, refused to do so.

[slipslidingaway]

16. But the amendments would be subject to the Byrd rule... thinking that

the PO will have any chance later is misguided IMO.

[laughingliberal]

24. The Public Option would stand a good chance of being able to pass under reconciliation.

The issue now is that any amendments offered would open the door for the Republicans to offer endless amendments to delay the vote while they continue to try to kill the bill. If the PO had been in the reconciliation bill it likely would have passed procedure.

[KittyWampus]

5. of course the ratfuckers at FDL will use the "up or down vote" that REPUBLICANS chant

But why the heck do we have to allow this crap on DU?

[laughingliberal]

11. Pardon me...but an up or down vote is what the Senate needs to pass the bill

That's what the reconciliation bill they are trying to pass now is-an up or down vote. But anger at Sanders is misplaced. Pelosi and the White House didn't want the public option in the reconciliation bill. Allowing amendments now would open the door to more Republican crap.

Funny. It's Republican crap to try to bring the PO for an up or down vote but not when we're trying to pass the bill under reconciliation. That makes sense. Trying to pass a progressive progressive provision with an up or down vote = Republican chant, Passing the entire package (which is not very progressive) with an up or down vote is not. Up is down.

[robinblue]

13. Spot on.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

21. So, you were unaware we are going to passing the fix to the Senate bill that Pelosi wrote

on an up or down vote? I mean are you opposed to a call for up or down votes or just opposed to it for getting a public option? Cause the Republicans sure as hell don't want an up or down vote on the public option.

[robinblue]

30. I take it that the above was a nasty

comment since it was removed. Thanks for your posts.

[laughingliberal]

52. Thanks for noticing.

:)

[KittyWampus]

17. Pardon me, but it's the same tactic suggested by FEL ratfuckers whose sole motive is stirring shit

from the Left.

Over the last week-months it's quite clear there are large numbers of DU'ers who aren't savvy enough to figure this out.

But then, many are. And those are the ones intentionally posting half-truths and outright misinformation.

And I sure as heck don't care what anyone says who spends time on other supposed Left websites that trash DU, DU's Administrators and fellow DU'ers.

[laughingliberal]

22. So, you're saying we shouldn't try to get bills passed on up or down votes in the Senate?

Or just we shouldn't get the Public Option passed on an up or down vote?

On edit: who's FEL?

Last I looked it's not against the rules for members of DU to participate on other political boards.

[cornermouse]

29. Ratfuckers?

Is that christianity in action?

[mmonk]

36. I ride the left wing airline/ stirring up trouble at night/

I'm just a yodelin' yip-yippie-/Cay-yippie yo de laaay ee-ooo- dee lay dee

[inna]

38. What an ugly and low personal attack.

Disgusting.

:thumbsdown:

[Bluebear]

50. surprised, are you?

[Subdivisions]

44. What other fucking 'supposed Left websites' are you talking about? Are we, as

members of DU, not allowed to participate on other forums?

I didn't see that in the rules.


Edited to ask because you failed to answer upthread: What the hell is FEL?

[Luminous Animal]

40. I guess Obama is a ratfucker. He used the term, also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html

[IndianaGreen]

49. Are you calling Pelosi a ratfucker, because that's what they are having, an up or down vote!

Pelosi decided to hold a vote on the Senate bill first.

[Champion Jack]

7. Why did you post this fdl crap here?

She jumped the shark a long time ago.

[laughingliberal]

20. Here's the Kuncinich hating Daily Kos reporting on it. Does that make it all better for you?

Reid apologized for failing to keep the public option in the current health care reform bill, but in a letter to Sens. Merkley and Sanders promised to bring it to a vote within the next several months.

Alien Abductee's diary :: ::
Reid:

As you know, I am a strong supporter of a public option, and I included the HELP Committee's public option in the bill I brought to the senate floor last year. I was disappointed when it became clear that we did not have the votes to keep it.

Nevertheless, like you, I remain committed to pursuing the public option. While I believe that the legislation we are considering does much to provide affordable coverage to millions of Americans and curb insurance company abuses, I also believe that the public option would provide additional competition to make insurance even more affordable. As we have discussed, I will work to ensure that we are able to vote on the public option in the coming months.

Apparently this was the price for getting Bernie Sanders to drop his efforts to get the public option into the reconciliation package as an amendment.

Supposedly they're going to look for upcoming reconciliation vehicles that they can attach the public plan to for an up-or-down vote.

All that's missing is a promise that the leadership and the WH will be all-out arm-twisting for that initiative the way they are for the current private insurance industry support bill.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/19/191916/304

It's true Sanders is backing out of offering the amendment.

[GinaMaria]

34. Makes me wonder how the administration is getting to these

progressives. He's backed down on an amendment? Sad day.

[inna]

42. What BS. FDL is one of the best progressive sites around, period.

Get a grip.

[spanone]

8. pfffft

[babylonsister]

9. fdl, throwing another progressive under the bus. It's getting crowded

under there.

[bigtree]

10. that's the standard promise given to recalcitrant legislators by the Senate leader and the WH.

. . . that they will revive the PO later. Legislators, like Sen. Sanders, who I respect, are apparently willing to believe the promises. I'm supporting them in that belief and plan to keep pressing for a vote right along with them.

[robinblue]

12. Pelosi makes promises and progressives flip flop. It seems to be the name of the game..

:mad: :puke:

[hansberrym]

14. If the house can pass two versions at once, why not three? It is all BS n/t

[Dappleganger]

15. Unrecc'd for FDL.

Please stop posting this CRAP and getting people riled up over nothing.

[FSogol]

25. FDL is hardly a credible source. They are essentially anti-reform advocates these days. n/t

[robinblue]

31. Passing a market-based bill is hardly a "reform" in my

way of thinking. It is odd that the Republicans are not on board and they are constantly calling for market based reforms--like Arne Duncan and his "reform" of education. Up is down sometimes.

[leftstreet]

58. +1

:thumbsup:

Welcome to DU!

[LWolf]

37. Bullshit.

Opposing bad reform doesn't make anyone "anti-" reform.

Put some worthy reform on the table.

[Raineyb]

39. But you consider the Daily Kos one right? n/t

[Arkana]

33. Ah, FDL--where we shoot even our staunchest allies in the back.

[ipaint]

35. There will never be a public option.

If it is not obvious after the betrayals of the past year and the fact that in the end ins. companies have everything they want, if it is not completely clear from the massive unregulated fraud on wall street that regulations are a thing of the past, combined with the supreme court ruling and the health industry contributions to every single senator involved in passing this scam, that a public option is completely dead then people have totally accepted being pawns, dupes and suckers.

It really is incredible that in the end the insurance/phrma companies won, rather early in the game at that, and after getting thoroughly screwed folks are talking about a public option. Ha!

An industry authored bill is going to be fixed in the future by the same paid off folks that allowed the industry to write the bill to begin with.

:banghead: Complete clusterfuck.

[branders seine]

41. the flip flop by progressives in governent (all three of them LOL)

and by progressive media voices has been almost as sudden and inexplicable as Obama's hard right shift upon election.

[inna]

43. Recommended.

[backscatter712]

45. Are the firebaggers threatening to primary Bernie Sanders again?

Isn't that special....

[HootieMcBoob]

46. I trust Sanders more than any Senator

He and a few others will work hard to get this legislation passed. Once this is law it might be easier to add a public option to the exchange at some point or to open up medicare to more people. let's pass this legislation so we can get our foot in the door first.

[berni_mccoy]

48. FDL = Falsehoods, Disinformation and Lies. UNREC. Please stop posting their b.s.

[laughingliberal]

53. I think it's been established that Sanders isn't offering the amendment

I know last week Reid said if he let even one amendment be offered it would open the floodgates for endless procedural delays by the Republicans. I don't agree with FDL's take on this but the information is accurate. And it would have been nice to have an up or down vote on the public option. But Pelosi killed it this time.

[inna]

56. LOL, what BS. FDL is one of the best progressive sites around, period.

[laughingliberal]

54. I didn't see any mention of it in the article. Kos, however called for primarying

Kucinich. Course it was too late to register to run in the Ohio primaries but I guess he didn't fact check before making a knee jerk attack.

[thotzRthingz]

55. it's precisely this sort of FLIP-FLOPPING (and selling us out, via back-room deals) that

...causes me to be a registered-INDEPENDENT, instead of simply being a "DEM".

If the supporters of the public option won’t fight for it now in a reconciliation bill, when it has the best chance of passing with a simple majority vote, why should we ever trust their promise of getting to it “later?”

And that has been my argument all along! I simply DO NOT TRUST "them" to FIX anything... they (the HOUSE) already passed a PUBLIC OPTION, and they said there are 50+ votes in the Senate which would pass a PUBLIC OPTION via reconciliation. So why have Obama, Reid, and Pelosi "sold out" the DEMS?! I don't think they ever intended to do what's BEST for the American people (instead they've pushed through what can only be deemed CORPORATE WELFARE, under the guise of HCR).

"They" (corporatist politicians) are JERKING YOU AROUND (you=DEMS)... "talking a great deal about a public option, and fixing this corporate welfare bill once it gets signed into law" ...but if you think THAT is going to happen, you had better WAKE UP!

The recent USSC ruling, allowing CORPORATIONS to spend as much as they desire on political campaigns, has SEALED OUR FATE (unless we do something NOW, not wait around for "politicians to give us more empty promises")!

Give us a ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION NOW (via reconciliation) or KILL THIS GOD-DAMNED BILL! I know that's a harsh reality to face, for some... but REALITY it is!

[amborin]

57. K&R

[leftstreet]

59. K&R