Recent Colorado polling on a public option tells us what we all know. Well, most of us know. Colorado wants a public option.
Bennet s going to take heat for the letter he wrote saying we should put the public option back in and pass it by reconciliation.
Bennet will advocate for this because he knows it’s the best thing for America. And Colorado.
It turns out, that most of Colorado agrees with him. Even CD4.
He is not doing this because there is a primary, as some have fallaciously and unfairly indicated. He came out in support of a public option not later than June*, well before there was a primary. And it was not later than early September that he was clear that he would advocate reconciliation to get it passed, if necessary*. Still before there was an actual primary.
He’s not misinterpreting the will of the people of Colorado as the R talkers and posters at the DenPost are claiming. He’s leading on this important issue because he knows (he said so again last night – I’ll link the video when it’s available) that it is vital to our national security, to getting the debt under control, and it is the right thing to do for America.
The R talking points are going to distort and tell more lies, calling it a “government take over” which it is not, that it will drive up the deficit, about which CBO scoring says it reduces the deficit, and maybe even that the death panels are real.
I really really wanted a public option, but I think the demand for it is killing health reform’s odds:
(1) Reid’s press for a public option delayed reform at least a month, which ultimately let Scott Brown take office in time to kill a vote; I’m not blaming Reid at all (I didn’t see Scott Brown coming either!), but holding out for a public option proved deadly.
(2) Without the Stupak amendment (which the Senate jettisoned), the bill loses 5-10 votes of the 220 it initially had; killing the public option could help pick up some votes from moderate/conservative dems.
(3) I don’t think reconciliation will work to create a public option. The parliamentarian strikes anything non-budgetary from a reconciliation bill, so it’s likely he’d strike (a) all the regulations necessary to make sure a public option works (e.g., what the plan must cover), (b) a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination, etc.
… a piece backing up my fear that reconciliation wouldn’t work well for creating a public option, mainly because reconciliation is permissible only for budget bills, and a public option bill would have to include a lot of non-budgetary rules: http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
rules about budgetary and reconciliation.
Seems like anyhing that allows CBO to score it as deficit reduction, would be a “budgetary issue.”
The current proposal is to keep the Senate bill already passed (which includes a bunch of the non-budgetary regulations, like the ban on pre-existing conditions) and then amend it to pass a public option directly using reconciliation, since that’s more directly budget-related.
Also I don’t see any evidence that the delay in the Senate bill was due to the public option. The delay was due to Max Baucus’ heroic efforts over a period of months to get no Republicans to support the bill. Every other committee had their bills written in the summer.
She negotiated in bad faith for months, and Reid and Obama let her because they still believe Republicans might actually want to solve problems, not just jam the system.
Agree (a) with sxp151 that Baucus’s efforts were the source of some of the delay, and (b) with RedGreen that some Republicans negotiated in bad faith (though I think you mean Snowe, who was one of that gang of 6, not Collins — and I think Grassley was the one who was most full of shit, as evidenced by his “negotiating” with Baucus while simultaneously sending out fundraising letters about his efforts to “stop Obamacare”).
I still doubt a public option could be enacted thru reconciliation. I completely agree with the plan to have the House pass the existing Senate bill, then fix it thru reconciliation (which, yes, would avoid the need for reconciliation on matters already covered by the Senate bull, like pre-existing conditions). And while my understanding of senate rules is totally second-hand — I’m not any expert — it still sounds like a public option plan would have not only a spending component, but a set of rules (what conditions must be covered, what doctors/hospitals would be included, etc) that are non-budgetary enough to create a real risk that the parliamentarian kicks them out of the bill.
— I shouldn’t say I “doubt” a public option would make it thru reconciliation; what I mean is that so many folks are saying it’s uncertain and dubious, I doubt the Senate Dems would vote for it. They don’t like calling a vote unless it’s certain to pass, you know.
Apologies to Susan Collins, who demonstrates her bad faith more often when it comes to national security and terrorism questions.
wasn’t she BS’ing recently about the questioning of the underwear bomber or something?
Email me asap – it’s in my sig. Very important, I promise. No snark.
Please send me a quick email. Not kidding, it’s important. It’s on my profile.
you’re cracking me up.
But You are also fair and kind. Next time my pants are on fire- just send me a text message or call me. 🙂
No worries. I just couldn’t believe you’d break up with me and not answer my calls!!!
I was just trying to giv e you space