An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Finance Committee Rejects Public Option (15-8)
By a margin of 15-8, the Senate Finance committee has voted to reject an amendment which would provide for a public option in the health care reform package. Republicans voted 10- to reject the amendment while Democrats voted 8-5 in favor of it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Finance Committee Rejects Public Option (15-8)”
You mean, republicans voted 15- and democrats voted -8.
If all the Democrats can muster is 8-5, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Hey, it was bi-partisan!
There were two amendments. The second one was more likely but it failed 13-10 (Carper and Nelson switched to Aye). You might want to put that one up.
My Senator is on that committee. He lost my vote with his support of the amendment. I had voted for him in every past election.
I guess that's what you get for playing liberal DC politics, when you're a Democrat representing a “red” state.
Unreal. They can't even get a public option out of committee.
Public option is in 4 of the 5 committees. And with 10 votes for it in the most conservative committee in the Senate there's a good chance Dems can get to 60 after they merge the bills. Baucus voted no because he knew he did not have 60 votes at this time. Conrad is still fixated on co-ops. Maybe when co-ops get voted down in his committee he'll realize that a public option is necessary. The real tough one is Blanche Lincoln – though if her colleague Pryor goes for it (and he's indicated support for it before) then she might have the cover.
But even without, the Carper and Nelson (FL) votes actually bring the confirmed total to 51 votes in the Senate for the first time. Under reconciliation the Senate could pass the public option.
What I'm hoping is that the Senate passes everything ELSE with 60 votes this year. And then it goes back and passes the public option as a completely separate bill under reconciliation – much of the other reform measures cannot be passed under reconciliation.
Another possibility is triggers, which has the support of Snowe and probably the remaining Dem holdouts. I'm not against triggers – as long as they are real.
Well for public option supporters, the bright side is you got 61% support from democrats.
[...] this. Alas, our Senators do not. They are so beholden to special interests that they have killed the public option, or threatened to load it up with nonsense and requirements and triggers and abortion bans and only [...]
Leonidas,
That's sharp. And sadly true.
In all honesty I don't think the public option is essential to health care reform. But if there is no public option then there needs to be greater subsidies than those offered right now. Otherwise you get working class people literally threatened with fines – or even jail – for not giving their money to private insurance companies who have NO incentive to cut costs.
The corruption in our system is mind-boggling.
I'm glad you brought up corruption, Elrod.
That's what I've been on the soapbox saying for months now.
None (or few) in Congress has the intestinal fortitude to stand against the ones that line their pockets:
Pharmaceutical companies.
Insurance companies.
Healthcare corporations.
Trial lawyers.
If they actually fixed those problems, we'd need no public option, and healthcare would be much much more affordable. I've got no problem with the government providing healthcare for children and the elderly. Heck, fix it and expand it if they want to.
JD
In this we concur. At TMV, millions of electrons have been splashed across the screen debating the philosophic, fiscal, and constitutional aspects of health care reform. None of those carefully debated issues from here have showed up in senate discussions. It's about the money, and prostitutes on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to keep the profits flowing just like normal.
I'll vote for anybody that shows they have a genuine concern for the American public. Party affiliation is less important than than honest service to the public.
You may dislike the public option, but at least it is an attempt to break up the health care cartel that buys votes to guarantee profits. If you have another method to break the monopoly, I'm all ears.
Childish demands and expectations (for a “robust” or “strong” public option) just got properly shot down. The public option is not dead yet, but obviously the childish demands on the Left have been dealt a proper putting-down. Will they learn from it, is the real question. The position of the House and what it wants for a revised public option, or in exchange for losing a public option, is key now.
I agree about the monopoly and the “prositutes”.
My biggest concern is that we're not trading one monopoly and prostitutes, for another monopoly and another bunch of prostitutes. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
But if the Dems force this thing through. I'll be ticked. Most of us will be (I think).
It got our of four other committees.
but the way to fix three of four of those problems IS with a public option.
You could be right, Rafter.
What worries me about it, though, is the destruction of an entire industry to acheive that goal.
I'm just tired of politicians on both sides lining their pockets with money from those industries to keep the status quo. The list of contributions to Dems and GOP Congressmen is mind-boggling.
I don't like it, but if they are going to do it, just go all the way with the single-payer system and get it over with. 50/50 doesn't work with much in the government.
but you're arguing in favor of the status quo…first you say you're concerned about the destruction of an entire industry, but then you're complaining about the industry trying to stop it's destruction. You're arguing both sides here.
I'm not arguing both sides.
I believe REGULATION is better than destruction.
Pharmaceuticals, Healthcare, Insurance and Tort Reform