You ARE the Votes

by Senate Guru, Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 07:47:09 AM EDT

We've heard from a number of conservative Democratic Senators that a public option can't be included in a health care reform bill because the votes just wouldn't be there to pass it.  (All emphasis added by me.)

Joe Lieberman (I/Dem caucus-CT), 6/16/09:

probably the most important, the votes are not there for a public health plan, government run option and this can stand in the way of a historic achievement for President Obama

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), 6/21/09:

She told CNN's John King: "Well to be candid with you, I don't know that he has the votes right now. I think there's a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus."

Kent Conrad (D-ND), 8/16/09:

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option, there never have been, so to continue to chase that rabbit is just a wasted effort," Conrad said on Fox News Sunday.

Max Baucus (D-MT), 9/9/09:

He also said there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass the "public option," based on public and private conversations he's had with his colleagues.

Mark Pryor (D-AR), 9/10/09:

"My guess is that there are not votes to do it in the Senate, even a very modest public option like what he's talking about," Pryor said.

To Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Conrad, Baucus, and Pryor, along with Senators Bayh, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Nelson: you ARE the votes!

Saying that you oppose a public option "because the votes aren't there" is a nonsensical excuse when the votes would be there if the people claiming that the votes aren't there voted for it!  You are the votes.  Quit copping out.

For daily news and analysis on the U.S. Senate races around the country, regularly read Senate Guru.

Tags: conservative democrats, Dianne Feinstein, hcr, health care reform, Joe Lieberman, Kent Conrad, Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, Public Option (all tags)

  • 14 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

14 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Nader was right in 2000

Sure the Republicans are much worse. But I think neither party has risen to the occasion. The Democratic Party has messed up implementing reforms in the finance industry when they had all the leverage of the bailouts which means dont count on any reforms in the near future.

All these years, Republicans have been blamed for the various ills. Yet when Democrats control EVERY aspect of government, they keep copping out.

And the biggest criticism of Nader was why he didn't work constructively within the party confines and had an oversized ego. Sure, that may be true. Before you bash me for a Nader comment as reflexively is done on liberal blogs, explain this to me why people like Howard Dean, Wes Clark,  and Kucinich who have worked within the system are given less importance by the Democratic Party senators/President/Cabinet members than people like the Blue Dogs? Even Feingold seems to have less influence on Democratic Senators actions than these Blue Dogs who were wrong about a lot of things during the Bush years. So it's not just ideology where the Blue Dogs fail, but they fail the merit test. They simply dropped the ball on many issues. Yet here we are 8 years after the Nader debacle still frustrated at the inaction of the DEmocratic party head honchos on various longstanding problems in the country.

If anything, Democrats should have less fear of trying out liberal ideas now than in 2000 because 8 years of Bush have destroyed confidence in many moderate Americans of republican policies. So if the Democrats cant achieve anything now, what makes people think they would have done anything more than the status quo in 2000?

by Pravin 2009-09-15 08:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nader was right in 2000

No Nader was not right in 2000. Do you really want to argue that Gore was no different than Bush?

2ndly lets assume arguendo that Nadar was right. And lets assume arguendo we all voted for Nadar in 2000. Nadar would have accomplished what?

In our system of government the executive is not king (no matter what Bush and Cheney thought).

Finally as long as we are at it, lets assume Nadar became president in January instead Obama.  How would Nadar have gotten health care through congress? Or a stimulous bill stronger than Obama's?

What deals would he have made to get them passed? Or would he simply said no bill is better than a bad bill.

Paul Krugman states the stimulous bill, while not strong enough in his opinion prevented the Great Depression part two. If Nadar wouldn't have bargained with the idiot senator from Maine (who cut spending out of the bill for the sake of saying she kept spending down, rather than for any sound economic reason), what do you suppose would have happened to main street. Would that be ok with you?

If your complaint is we need better Democrats, I am with you, but I don't see Ralph adding anything to your argument. We still need effective progressive politicans. No evidence Nadar fits that bill.

by molly bloom 2009-09-15 10:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nader was right in 2000

The point is not whether Bush and Gore were different, the point is how much should be done to push Democrats leftward to the extent that we will NEVER get meaningful reform if the Democratic Party is not reformed.

by LeftistAddiction 2009-09-15 10:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nader was right in 2000

Actually, I am not as leftist as nader, though I do see things at a bigger level the same way he does. For me, it's not about moving the country left, but to the correct set of solutions and we have tried enough experiments from the right. So in a way, yes, I support trying more of the left's ideas just because there are more untried ideas on that side of the spectrum.

by Pravin 2009-09-15 11:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nader was right in 2000

The fact is for the long term, it was more important to reform the system. I take what any economist says with a grain of salt even if I listen to Krugman a lot more than the others. The economic system of the world is not easy for any one economist to understand with such clarity. We do know regardless of how effective these bailouts may have been(no one can tell for sure), we do know that it was an excellent opportunity to enact reforms in the financial sector that will be very improbable to push in better times. Anyone with a basic understanding of using one's leverage would have known that. Unfortunately democrats lack that common sense. They royally gave in too easily without calling the banks and financial firms on their bluff.

It is the same way with healthcare. They empowered the Blue Dogs by giving credence to their usual "i dont have any concrete ideas, so I will just pick a safe right of the middle stance"  set of ideas. Instead , as Maher said, there were many ways they could have been proactive at phrasing the healthcare issue. I personally started out very skeptical of government controlling healthcare until recent months. But then the medicare for all mantra made sense even though I will never be enamored with a governement controlled healthcare. I do think there are inefficiencies in government, but what made me come over to the liberal side on this is that the long tried alternative has been a massive faillure. There is a lot more inefficiency in the private structure, some of the reasons which still baffle me because I tend to trust the efficiency of private enterprise in the absence of monopolies.

How about some talking points that common people can understand and that will convert more people like me who were intitially opposed to single payer?
1) Do we really have choice now? Unless I quit my job, I have NO real choice in my healthcare insurance. I have to take what my employer gives me. How is that freedom? It is not realistic to pick a job just for my insurance.

2) What is the point of spending trillions on national security and anti terrorism efforts to save lives if more people die from underfunded healthcare each year?

3) Do people know that if they get sick in another state when traveling, they have to pay out of network fees under a typical healthcare insurance plane even if that company has a network in that state?

4) my Mother retired and has gotten medicare recently. Her choice of doctors did go down, but not to any significant extent and I am sure the government is spending less on her than what her employer had to spend thanks to the insurance premiums. She still can see the doctors she used to. The donut hole thing needs to be fixed.
When people brag about their healthcare plans, ask them if they are really doing much better than their parents on medicare.

by Pravin 2009-09-15 11:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Easy answer

Because Howard Dean, Wes Clark and Dennis Kucinich can't win elections (except apparently in Cleveland) while the Blue Dogs regularly do.

Also, Dean and Clark are progressives all of a sudden? How'd that happen?

by DTOzone 2009-09-15 10:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Easy answer

In whose world is Dean NOT a progressive? It's not about not  being leftist or even not being Naderesque that i complain about. it is about having the guts to implement good solutions regardless of ideology. I dont think Dean and Clark are wedded to leftist ideology any more than Obama or other moderates. But they will fight harder to implement what is right. Same with Feingold. He was CORRECT on several issues. I could care less what his ideology is.

All I am saying is the party has an excellent chance to prove nader wrong.

As far as the Blue Dogs and other moderates, not all of them contest in places where an alternate Democrat cannot get elected. Dianne Feinstein, for example. Come on. Webb is more conservative than some of the Blue Dogs , but he is not my hit list as much , yet. When I refer to the Blue Dogs, it's not their ideology, but the fact they were wrong, they cowered before Bush, but somehow have the courage to be obstructionists now.

Even a Blue Dog democrat, no matter how conservative, should value healthcare for all as a bigger priority than reconstructing foreign countries and lining up contractor pockets. Yet, we rarely see them offer resistance to taxpayer spending on Halliburton. But they have plenty of time to find excuses to look out for mdoerate americans on healthcare spending by the government.

by Pravin 2009-09-15 11:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
In a world

where the forer NRA endorsed former Governor of Vermont's healthcare plan in 2004 looked like Baucus' does now and in a world where the deficit hawk fiscal conservative former Governor of Vermont (whom, IIRC Naderites labelled a "Rockefeller Republican") supports more troops in Afghanistan.

by DTOzone 2009-09-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: In a world

Dean's 2004 plan had a public option.  Did it really look like Baucus'?

by Steve M 2009-09-15 01:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
No it didn't

My plan consists of four major components.

First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.

Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.

Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.

To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.

Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.

Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.

I believe this plan is sensible and that it can pass Congress -- but most importantly, I believe that it is the right thing to do. When my wife, Judith Steinberg, and I graduated from medical school, we took an oath in which we pledged to practice our profession with conscience and dignity and to always make the health of our patients our first consideration. With this plan, and in my campaign for the presidency, I will make the health of all Americans my first priority. Our country has waited too long, and we must do better.

No where in there was there a public option...just a health insurance plan like the one federal employees have, which isn't nearly the same as a public option, it's subsidized private insurance.

by DTOzone 2009-09-15 04:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No it didn't

You've been tricked by the framing - which makes you wonder why the Democrats have abandoned this particular framing concept.  Expanding Medicare and S-CHIP is the public option!

Dean's public option wasn't open to everyone, of course, but neither are many of the public option proposals on the table this year.  The only thing that's new in this election cycle is the argument that the public option will be a sort of Trojan Horse for single-payer... I don't recall hearing that argument before Edwards started making it in the primaries.  Of course he meant it in a good way.

by Steve M 2009-09-16 08:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You ARE the Votes

EXCELLENT post.

by LeftistAddiction 2009-09-15 10:19AM | 0 recs
Partido verde
Re: You ARE the Votes

Great post.

by Charles Lemos 2009-09-15 11:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Senate Guru, you've posted one of the best...

...diaries ever.

So simple, and yet so poignant and clarifying.

I mean that sincerely.

And I thank you.

This actually is a great slogan/battle cry:  "You ARE the votes!"

by DCCyclone 2009-09-15 12:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------