Another House Dem Confirms He’ll Vote No On Senate Bill
Okay, I’ve got some more news on the whip count front this morning, some of it good for Dems, some of it bad.
First up: Dem Rep Jim Marshall, a prominent Blue Dog who voted No last time but was believed to be open to backing the Senate bill, is now a definite No, his spokesperson confirms.
“Marshall is a no,” Marshall spokesperson Doug Moore tells our reporter, Ryan Derousseau.
Marshall is one of 39 Dems who voted No last time that reform proponents were hoping to flip to Yes, in order to make up ground and get to 216 votes. The confirmation that Marshall will vote No reduces that pool a bit.
But: Another Blue Dog in that same pool, Rep Jim Matheson, who also voted No last time, is now undecided.
“He is waiting for, among other items, the CBO score on the changes proposed by the President,” Matheson spokesperson Alyson Heyrend tells us.
As I and many others have noted, it’s a bit premature to reach hard conclusions about the whip count, pending the actual language of the reconciliation fix and the CBO score of it.
But definite No votes — like Marshall’s — are worth noting. Dem leaders need to flip as many as possible from No to Yes if they’re going to pass the bill. It’s true that Matheson’s move to Undecided could give Dems one more vote, but this is anything but certain.
For now, anyway, pending Matheson’s final decision, these latest developments are a net loss for Dems.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
@Greg: Isn’t the reconciliation fix almost guaranteed to make the whole thing less expensive? They are getting rid of all the special kickbacks… (I can’t see how it will bend the cost of care curve any but the total cost of the bill has got to be less.)
Greg, I couldn’t tell from the link in the Morning Plum if the CBO has the reconciliation fix or not. Do you know if they’re working on it now?
If I were a Congressman and I didn’t want to publicly highlight my vote so I became a target from all the advertising that is about ready to clobber these people in the coming weeks, I’d tell you press folks to **** off and say I’m voting no just to get you and the Chamber of Commerce,Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks off my case.
That’s just me personally though.
Golly, wait until he is assailed, just as all the few left-wing-Dems have been assailed, then he’ll fall in line!
Lets hear how this right-wing Blue Dog is going to get a Primary!
Wait, you mean that it’s only been left-wing-Dems that have been assailed to keep ‘falling in line’?
You mean there is only consequences for left-wing Dems and never consequences for right-wing-Dems?
The reconciliation fix has not been finalized and the CBO doesn’t have it…
Thanks Greg.
Greg, I guess the better question for house members is which bill would you vote “no” for? It seems like some have backed away from the senate bill, but because of the lack of cbo score, we see nothing on the reconciliation bill. Is it possible that folks would vote for one and not the other?
Can somebody clarify something for me? There’s a deadline to a reconciliation vote, I believe it’s in April. What is the exact date?
Charlie Rose airs an interview with Speaker Pelosi, tonight. Watch for it on your local PBS stations.
“You mean there is only consequences for left-wing Dems and never consequences for right-wing-Dems?”
You mean like Lincoln and Stupac who have primary pressure from the left?
I don’t know whether it’s deliberate, but the longer this drags on, the more primary filing deadlines come and go.
Just Somebody, did you see my response to your question the other night re the state single payer issue?
Re: Stupak.
If it was wrong to carve out special favors for Ben Nelson, in the health care legislation, and I agree that it was wrong;
Then;
Why the hell is Mullah Stupak entitled to have special favors carved out for him.
To hell with that. No special legislation for just one religious nut, because that would be allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Just say no to Stupak, and the Vatican. Defend the rights of women, because where ever women are subjugated, tyranny thrives.
I did lmsinca, and Sander’s provision is one of the reasons I’m on board with PTDB, even if it wouldn’t take effect till 2017. You said Cali would probably seriously consider this provision, and I think MN has a good head start in this direction. NY would probably do this too (14% uninsured). I do hope there’s language inserted to protect those states from insurance co.’s litagations. Thanks for that response.
Liam, talk about finger on the pulse, last night on Countdown (i think) Diane DeGette called the Stupak deal, the “Deal with the Devil”… Or something like that. I’ll have to find the quotation.
Bart Stupak’s Deal with the Devil is derailing HCR even though only 3% of Americans opposed to HCR oppose it because they think it will fund abortions.
quagmire
Ah, Liam, sorry it was Rachel:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35788794
Doh!
Pamella Gellar goes after Glen Beck. It’s lunatic vs. lunatic.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/03/glenn-beck-think-before-you-preach.html
Agreed JustS, I think CA will have a more difficult time because of the ridiculous need for a super-majority here, but it’s the same reason I’m on board for this bill.
The Beck thing last night was unbelievable. The tell though was that when GB was trying to get Massa to dish dirt and Massa replied with an oddly sane-sounding “we have to change the way DC operates,” Beck just covered his face.
The message: we ONLY do politics here, in the sensationalistic, Rovian sense. We don’t talk about real policy or substance.
And so on view was a guy losing his marbles and speaking more sensibly than a guy who has the highest ratings at Fox.
Interesting times we live in.
Massa on Beck:
Creepy V. Weepie.
lminca, I’m glad that the provision isn’t receiving much air-play from the administration because then it’ll inevitably get compromised away in the current political mayhem. So I see it as a lurking provision that could well be the next front of the health care fight. 50 states is big number and a big fight and while I wish the backstop were a federally mandated single-payor, I recognize the country just isn’t ready yet.
I don’t know if anyone saw it yesterday or not but Grayson presented a 4 page bill for a medicare buy-in. No subsidies, just people paying a premium to use medicare. Wouldn’t cost the government anything, but of course it will never pass. Maybe someday.
lmsinca, doesn’t a medicare buy-in sound better than a public option? I know President Lieberman shot it down, but this is what they should’ve been pushing for in the first place.
I got a simple bill that’s easy to sell and would cost very little. Outlaw discrimination for pre-existing conditions, and allow everyone to buy into Medicare. There might be some minor details to hash out but for the most part, that could fit on one page. Who would object to that? Well, besides the blue dogs and republicans?
Unfortunately SDJeff, the climate is so toxic now that I doubt it would pass either the Senate or the House. Maybe in the nearer rather than later future.
some of you will find this encouraging:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/lefty-groups-and-labor-planning-massive-tv-ad-push-in-health-reforms-final-stretch/
“… Grayson presented a 4 page bill for a medicare buy-in. No subsidies, just people paying a premium to use medicare. Wouldn’t cost the government anything…”
God Bless him!
Was this what you watched:
“Rep. Alan Grayson: Vote Now on the Public Option.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy2Y5Uevisk
Stupak’s challenger Connie Saltonstall needs a web page and an ActBlue.com page before she can be taken seriously.
Though it’s noteworthy that she does appear to have a supporter who has put up an ActBlue.com page and titled it:
“by Republican for Health Reform”:
http://www.actblue.com/page/gone_rogue
That’s it NewsRef. There are still people in Congress pushing progressive legislation whether this bill passes or not. I think we’ll get a better tail wind if it passes, I know you don’t agree. I have thought long and hard over this and think it needs to pass at all costs. Here’s
Wfleets post from last night that really moved me, he’s in the same position I am, in that he truly hates the insurance industry but still thinks we need to vote for this bill. Here’s his comment:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/happy-hour-roundup-176/#comment-204685
Medicare will bust the budget without reform. Not sure that Grayson’s bill fixes Medicare or just adds to the problem.
sbj
The Senate bill begins reform of Medicare. I personally believe if people were allowed to “buy” medicare policies, it would extend the life of medicare substantially. People like my husband and I who pay almost $1400 per month which will be going up this year as I turn 60, would be happy to purchase medicare. We are not sick, either one of us, and barely use our insurance, we’re just getting frakking old.
Everyone is under the assumption that people with pre-existing conditions are all sick. No, the insurance industry has just decided they’re not worth the risk. Likewise people who cannot afford the premiums now may be able to afford the medicare buy-in, they’re not necessarily sick either.
@lmsinca: “I personally believe if people were allowed to “buy” medicare policies, it would extend the life of medicare substantially.”
I think that’s a fairly important question we need to have a clear answer for before we start voting. If the cost of health care keeps going up then the cost of Medicare buy-in will just keep going up, too, right?
BTW, it’s my understanding that the Senate bill extends the life of Medicare by a measly ten years. These “fixes” aren’t really fixing anything, IMO.
BTW sbj, the public option was already scored and saved money over the long term even after the start-up costs. Since medicare is already up and running, there wouln’t be much of a set-up involved. I’m assuming it would also save money over the long term but it would need to be scored anyway before a vote. I wouldn’t worry about it too much though, I don’t see this happening for a few years probably. Once insurance premiums keep going up, I’m sure we’ll we more movement in this direction.
Joe Donnelly, a previous yes vote, stated in an interview that he will vote no unless the Senate abortion language is changed.
http://www.rochsent.com/main.asp?SectionID=15&SubSectionID=31&ArticleID=8886
“BTW, it’s my understanding that the Senate bill extends the life of Medicare by a measly ten years. These “fixes” aren’t really fixing anything, IMO”
And in order to achieve a virtually meaningless decade extension in solvency, they have to make cuts that will, according to the actuary of Medicare (twice), reduce the quality and availability of care for seniors and will cause upwards of 20% of nursing homes and extended care facilities to come under “severe financial strain”. The notion that a half-trillion dollar cut in Medicare is just going to be cutting fraud and waste (why aren’t they doing that now) is absolutely ludicrous.
If they want to gain my trust – “Fix Medicare First”
We have compiled a full table showing the entire Democratic whip count. It includes all Democrats who previously voted “no” on the original bill, plus those who voted “yes” and have since indicated they may flip. The full table (with links to supporting articles for each vote) can be found here.
Screw the bill, killing it is the best thing for everybody. The insurance co’s wrote the thing in the first place, they would NEVER include anything that would make them help people…just want that mandate/corporate welfare.
The bill, like most legislation, is a total farce. If they really want to help us regular folks, simply let us buy insurance anywhere in the country, cover us anywhere in the world, and let us buy prescriptions worldwide. That would bring all those prices down.
The Senate bill is a rotting carcass attracting flies and stinking up the halls of Congress.
The fig leaf / safety net of some Senate reconciliation ‘fix’ down the road is gone. We KNOW the House has to vote the Senate bill up or down first and then TRUST the Senate to fix it. which they wont, because if the senate wanted it that way, they would have voted it that way to begin with.
And passing it? Are the Dems nuts? Read Pat Caddell’s column. It will destroy the Democrats totally in November. It’s a bad bill that hurts many and satisfies few. Progressives and conservatives alike revile the flawed tradeoffs made.
The ONLY reason the Dems have left to pass this stinker is the flawed belief that somehow Obama’s, and their, political credibility will be enhanced by ‘action’… WRONG! This bill is so unpopular it will EXHAUST the Democrats ability to do anything else. Obama has mis-spent all his political capital on this bad bill. DeMint was right, it’s like Waterloo.
The sooner the House desposes of it, the better off everyone will be. And dispose means come out and say “We cant do it”. Meanwhile, Pelosi is ignoring Stupak, which is sign enough that this bill will NOT pass, while delusionally rounding up votes and twisting arms that are already broken. Pelosi is leading the lemmings off a cliff. She is forcing Democrats to vote an end to their own careers.
There needs to be 40 courageous Democrats to stand up and say “WE ARE FIRM NOS” and the stinking rotting carcass can be thrown out.
“And in order to achieve a virtually meaningless decade extension in solvency, they have to make cuts that will, according to the actuary of Medicare (twice), reduce the quality and availability of care for seniors and will cause upwards of 20% of nursing homes and extended care facilities to come under “severe financial strain”.”
They do this, ‘kill granny’, AND the Dems cluelessly think that old people getting mad at Townhalls thinking they’ll die from this is just a case of bad PR work. No, folks, its the bill itself! What a bunch of tools we have in DC!
“Why the hell is Mullah Stupak entitled to have special favors carved out for him.”
Duh, because his principles forbid Govt funding of abortion and most Americans agree with him.
If the progressives perfer no bill to a bill that excludes funding of abortion, they will get their wish. Without fixing Stupak’s issue, the bill is toast.