The Health Care Debate: Finance Committee Votes "No" on a Public Option

Arguing in good faith (0.00 / 0)

Big John:

Regardless...| 2:33 p.m. Despite what Mr. Kerry has just said, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, goes ahead and calls the public option an entitlement anyway.

He continues the Republican attack on Medicare and repeats the notion that a public plan will take away choices, not add to them.

How bipartisan of him.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 14:26:15 PM CDT

What you've got to understand is the (0.00 / 0)

"entitlement" is a euphemism for "equality," and Republicans are adamantly opposed to equality.  The only reason they tolerate Medicare and Medicaid is because they serve segregated populations.

Of course, they can't admit that.  So, what needs to happen is that they're tricked into supporting Medicare for everyone.

To the extent that a "public option" is a different program requiring a different bureaucracy, I'd be opposed to it too.

Democrats have apparently been assigned to different positions.  Some are on defense; some are on offense and some are cheering from the bench.

As Dean said on Countdown, if there's no public option, there will be reform of the insurance industry, but no money.  There will be no subsidy.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:56:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, no, no (0.00 / 0)

Listen, I don't like it when Republicans say ridiculous things about Democrats, and I actually don't like it when Democrats do the same thing. Saying that Republicans are opposed to equality and only "tolerate" certain programs because they serve segregated programs is rubbish. It cheapens the positions taken by Democrats to paint any group of people with this kind of broad brush.  So, please, don't make these broad condemnations of what is about one - third of the American population. I have friends and colleagues who are Republicans, and while I think they are misguided politically, they are not opposed to equality or into segregation of populations.  

Part of the problem with the whole debate over health care has been the fact that some - not all - Republicans have made stuff up, accused Demcorts of ridiculous things, etc. Democrats doing the same thing is not helpful.  

   

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:24:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

0 for 2: Schumer's Public Option Amendment Defeated (4.00 / 1)

Form the Times blog:

The Schumer amendment picked up two Democratic votes over the Rockefeller amendment, winning over Bill Nelson of Florida and Mr. Carper of Delaware. But the bill still went down to defeat, with 10 in favor and 13 against. Again, no Republicans supported it.

---

by: Tim Ashwell @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:03:01 PM CDT

So what's the point (4.00 / 2)

in even having the majority?

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:20:53 PM CDT

The point is, if (4.00 / 5)

the Republicans were in power we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:30:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair point (0.00 / 0)

But I want more from our caucus.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:31:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree. And we need (0.00 / 0)

to exert pressure for what we want. But it also helps to remember where we were a year ago. (Especially the blood pressure.)

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:42:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A year ago (0.00 / 0)

When our candidates ran on change? :-!

---

by: JimC @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:44:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And when W. was (4.00 / 2)

vetoing S-CHIP

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:57:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For the record (0.00 / 0)

I'm still unsatisfied. Your point is taken, but it only gets us so far.

I tried to search Baucus's campaign site, but it's unavailable.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:43:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but most Americans didn't know what that meant. (4.00 / 1)

I do think it's important to give our team the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know what they are doing.

This process has not been negative in terms of keeping more people involved in governing and thinking about governing.

Republicans have traditionally had operatives who attack in the off years and try to depress the vote.  Democrats, confident that their reps will do the right thing, have been insufficiently involved.

Self-government is not a once-a-year event.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:01:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I want more from the Red Sox. (0.00 / 0)

but I dont give up on them in the third inning. This still has to go to the floor, where there are other bills, and to then to reconciliation with the House.

Not over yet.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:41:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's never over (0.00 / 0)

That's the only real comfort I take: the future.

Every major step in the debate has been negative. The caucus (the entire caucus) has absolutely sucked. I'm optimistic and supportive, but to use your analogy ... too many stranded runners for my comfort level.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:48:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where is the Spine? (4.00 / 1)

As I've said for more years than I would like:
If voters see real Republicans and imitation Republicans,who do you think wins?

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:01:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's see. (4.00 / 2)

8 out of 23 total votes is roughly 35 percent.

And current polling of the American people has support for the public option at 65 percent.

So that means the Senate Finance Committee is only 30 percent out of step with the American public.

Well done!!!!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:04:04 PM CDT

Max Baucus is a liar. (4.00 / 4)

He piously claimed that he was obliged to vote against a public option because there are not 60 votes in favor of it, and it therefore cannot pass.

Many observers argue that a public option can be enacted through the reconciliation process, which is immune from filibuster. But I wouldn't call him a liar over that.

He is a liar because, worst case, the 60 votes are needed only to end the filibuster and let a vote proceed. The 60 votes are not needed for the subsequent vote on merits.

There should be NO Democrats willing to join in the Republican filibuster, regardless of their views on the issue. That makes 60.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:48:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's keep track (4.00 / 1)

For those Dems that would filibuster a major Democratic initiative based on the details, we should find out what they didn't filibuster during the Frist era.  And we should make a list.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:27:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

in case Baucus hadn't noticed (0.00 / 0)

The constitution clearly states that says bills can pass the Senate by a simple majority, which is 51, not 60.  The magic 60 number is just a relic from an old filibuster rule.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 18:15:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Expected? (0.00 / 0)

Was it not presumed that Baucus's committee would vote down the public option? While Baucus is in general a big disappointment (not to the insurance industry) it is not over yet, just begun, in terms of committee action.  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:47:15 PM CDT