Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Glenn Greenwald: Democrats' Scam Becomes More Apparent...on PO

Submitted by jawbone on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 12:13pm
Departments: 
Department of All The Damn Gall
Tags: 
obama
Glenn Greenwald
Dick Durbin

Glenn Greenwald points out in his post today that Dick Durbin is whipping against votes for a public option.

The one last hope for Senate Democratic leaders was to avoid a vote altogether on the public option, thereby relieving Senators of having to take a position and being exposed. But that trick would require the cooperation of all Senators -- any one Senator can introduce a public option amendment during the reconciliation and force a vote -- and it now seems that Bernie Sanders, to his great credit, is refusing to go along with the Democrats' sham and will do exactly that: ignore the wishes of the Senate leadership and force a roll call vote on the public option.


So now what is to be done? They only need 50 votes, so they can't use the filibuster excuse. They don't seem able to prevent a vote, as they tried to do, because Sanders will force one. And it seems there aren't enough Senate Democrats willing to vote against the public option after publicly saying all year long they supported it, which means it might get 50 votes if a roll call vote is held. So what is the Senate Democratic leadership now doing? They're whipping against the public option, which they pretended all year along to so vigorously support:

Senate Democratic leaders are concerned about the amount of mischief their own Members could create if or when a health care reconciliation bill comes up for debate. And sources said some supporters of creating a public insurance option are privately worried that they will be asked to vote against the idea during debate on the bill, which could occur before March 26.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. "We have to tell people, 'You just have to swallow hard' and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen," Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters.

If -- as they claimed all year long -- a majority of Congressional Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the moment when it finally became possible to pass it? If majorities of the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill? (Emphsis and links in orginal)

Well, Dick Durbin to the rescue as this week's Rotating Villain, which Greenwald discussed on February 23rd.

Obama never wanted a public option; he took single payer off the table and out of the national discourse. He gave the bill writing to a major Corporatist Dem with strong ties to the health insurance industry, Sen. Baucus, and Obama got what he wanted: Profit protection for the for-profit health insurance parasites and for the health industry corporations in general. Not necessarily for the people who serve patients' needs or for the patients, but for the corporate "persons" which make profits off the labor of real people and from the financial life blood of the people.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by jawbone on

the/a public option:

Jon Walker's latest on Durbin, now denying any whipping against -- it just can't be done, etc.

Here's Jon Walker at FDL writing about Bernie Sanders.

We recently learned that Harry Reid (D-NV) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) wereactually whipping against the public option and trying to deny the American people a real up-or-down vote on the issue in the Senate. It is good to see that Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is willing to defy them and instead go with the will of the American people. From Greg Sargent:

“I think somebody should do that, and I’d certainly be prepared to do that,” Sanders told me when I asked him if he’d be willing to commit to introducing a public option amendment. This is, in effect, a commitment to introduce the amendment if no one else does.

As I have explained earlier, if even one senator offers a public option amendment, and it is ruled germane, it would likely get an up-or-down vote as part of the reconciliation vote-a-rama. Designing a public option/public program buy-in that would be ruled germane and does not violate the Byrd rule should definitely be possible.

More from the Greg Sargent link:

The possiblity that a single Senator will introduce a public option amendment — which would get a straight majority vote — is actually worrying to Senate Dem leaders. Indeed, Dick Durbin, the number two Senate Dem, yesterday told reporters that this would create headaches and even conceded that the leadership might be forced to ask liberal Senators to vote against it to ensure smooth passage for the overall bill.

Still, WHAT is the PO Sanders will offer? What does that definite article "the" mean in relation to "public option"?

I don't want to get into that PO roach motel, but what the Senate leadership is doing in trying to keep Obama's bill purely a profit protection plan for health insurance parasites is telling.

Submitted by jawbone on

introduce would actually be.

Person answering phone said Sen. Sanders fully supports single payer, but realizes "the votes aren't there for that," and he doesn't know what Sanders would introduce as a PO, if he were to intro one....

Then said it would be a public option, which meant another round of "can you please define public option" with, yet again, no satisfactory results.

His DC office number is 202 224-5141. Perhaps a constituent can get better info.

connecticut man1's picture
Submitted by connecticut man1 on

it has to be based on an existing program OR legislation that is currently moving and/or pending. and budget neutral or budget saving etc.- blah blah.

The most likely vehicle would be Medicare. But it could be Medicaid? What else is there? The VA?

My best guess would be trying to line up something with Rep. Grayson's 4 page Medicare buy-in bill in the House.

Grayson Piles Up Another 40 Co-Sponsors for Medicare Buy-In Bill

In just two days, Alan Grayson has piled up 50 co-sponsors to his Medicare buy-in bill, which is designed as a stand-alone bill rather than as an amendment to the health reform bill.

connecticut man1's picture
Submitted by connecticut man1 on

that it could turn out to be the Public Option that already passed the House?

The next couple of weeks could get very interesting.

beowulf's picture
Submitted by beowulf on

So even though the Pentagon's Tricare and the VA's CHAMPVA are single payer systems, since the reconciliation instructions from last spring's budget resolution were for only the Senate Finance and HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pension) Committees, it would have to be a Medicare plan.

As I mentioned last night, I think the smart play is a Medicare buy-in with income based subsidies. There have been several proposals but I think Pete Stark's HR 193 Americare bill is the best of the lot. The 60 page bill provides automatic Medicare coverage for every child, pregnant woman, current Medicaid recipient and every other adult under 200% FPL, everyone else earning above that (or their employer) would pay income-scaled premiums to a Medicare trust funds (though if you still want to pay Aetna instead every month, knock yourself out). Oh and Stark's bill starts offering (per Commonwelath Fund mentioned at the link) 100% coverage starting Jan. 1 2011, Obamacare would take its sweet to get in the area code (but not the zip code) of universal coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. For the sick and uninsured, I'm sure those wasted 3 years will just zip by.

A member of PNHP, DrSteveB, wrote up an excellent summary of the Americare bill last summer (check out the two graphs he includes).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/7/7...

connecticut man1's picture
Submitted by connecticut man1 on

The stark bill might be a good choice. I read that diary from DrSteveB too. :)

Submitted by hipparchia on

it has to affect the budget in some way, either positive or negative, and by a substantial amount too. something that is budget neutral, or nearly so, on its own is considered extraneous and cannot be included in a reconciliation bill.

there are all kinds of ways to change a piece of legislation to either include it in or exclude it from in reconciliation, and they're all kind of fuzzy, which is where the senate parliamentarian comes in.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

RL has got me on the run, but in a cursory glance, the fact that "public option" itself is a scam, seems MIA here (and probably at Glenn's, a point he's continued to avoid making).

I'm a big proponent (not in the Obama calling himself a proponent of single-payer sense) of using scare quotes each and every time "PO" is referenced.

It's a fake and a fraud and a phantasm, and I urge all to be diligent about not suggesting it's something devoutly to be missed, because there's no there there.

Submitted by jawbone on

putting on for us. Quick step, two step, waltzing around. toe-the-line dances, lots of spins. Rope-a-dope....

Pelosi today says that with Durbin saying there weren't enough votes for a PO, there will be no PO in the reconciliation.

"We [meaning the House] had it, we wanted it (but) it's not in the reconciliation," Pelosi said during her weekly news conference. "It isn't in there because (the Senate doesn't) have the votes to have it in there."

Momentum had been building recently to reintroduce the government-run healthcare plan, The Hill reported Friday. More than 40 senators endorsed a letter sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee that called on senators to pass the public option through budget reconciliation process, which requires a simple majority instead of a 60-vote supermajority.

Assuming Vice President Joe Biden votes to break a tie, the number of senators who backed the public plan still is shy of the 50 votes needed for passage, the Washington publication said.

At no time do we get a definition of what the PO would be, whether House version (weak tea), opportunity for Grayson's Medicare Buy-In, smoke and mirrors. No clarity. But the House really, really, really wanted a PO! And that's got to count for something, voters.

Anyway, today seems game, set, match with PO losing and out of the tournament.

Jane Hamsher is now saying this should be an action item, as in make calls.

Not sure I have the sequence right, but it looks like this is the action:

  • Report comes out that Durbin and Reid are whipping against PO votes in Senate;
  • Durbin spokesman says that's wrong, that Durbin would whip for PO if House puts it in bill;
  • Durbin says he would whip for PO if in House reconciliations bill, but won't whip for amendment in Senate;
  • Durbin says not enough votes in Senate for PO;
  • Pelosi says won't put PO in reconciliation bill since not enough votes in Senate....

Oh, OK then. So back to staus quo ante. No PO, but nobody has defined PO anyway.

I think Greenwald was noting how the Dem leadership is playing the public.

We'll probably see things like this on, oh, SocSec and Medicare...lots of things.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

Thomas Nast, August 19, 1871.

twas_him

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.... And yes, today's legacy parties are far, far worse than Boss Tweed, whether measured on the sheer scale of corruption, lives lost, money stolen, everything.

connecticut man1's picture
Submitted by connecticut man1 on

At the very minimum a real Medicare buy-in (even Grayson's may be sketchy?) They are all the villains. And I am sure there will be a lot of people showing middle fingers that they can all rotate on.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Umbrella steps sideways. That seems to be the Dem ever-charging to the sides then being reined bact to the ... what did GG call it... Obama's Sacred (and revered rhetorically) Center. What was the word? .. maybe not sacred.

"Look how hard we're trying" is the defense. Don't presume to push for actual positive results.

Turlock