Blanche Lincoln’s Office: She’s “Withholding” Decision On Whether To Let Health Bill Go To Debate
Senator Blanche Lincoln is “withholding” her decision on whether to allow the Senate health care bill to proceed to the floor for debate, her spokesperson confirms.
Moderate Dem Senators Kent Conrad and Evan Bayh yesterday indicated they’ll vote Yes on the initial procedural vote allowing the bill with a public option to go to the floor, which requires 60 votes. And today a new poll found that 56% of her Arkansas constituents support the public option.
In light of these new developments, I asked Lincoln spokesperson Leah Vest if Lincoln would support the initial vote to allow the bill to go to a debate. She emailed:
Senator Lincoln has yet to see all the details of the plan Leader Reid has asked the Congressional Budget Office to review and therefore is withholding a final decision on a procedural motion to send it to the floor. Senator Lincoln has had numerous talks with her colleagues and Leader Reid and remains actively engaged in finding an acceptable solution that both greatly improves our health insurance system and avoids creation of a new government health insurance plan that places Arkansas and American taxpayers at risk.
Emphasis mine. Lincoln and Ben Nelson had been thought the primary holdouts against allowing the bill to proceed to debate. It appears the newfound willingness of Conrad and Bayh to vote Yes isn’t enough to persuade Lincoln, who’s under tremendous pressure from powerful forces arrayed against the public option, to do the same.
By the way, the initial vote to proceed to debate is a key hurdle. If Reid can get a bill with a public option to the floor, that’s a big psychological and tactical victory. By contrast, if the public option with the opt-out is stripped from the bill in order to get it to the floor, it becomes harder to get it back in the bill.
Aides to Harry Reid are said to be reasonably confident that they will prevail on this score in the end. But it still may not be a sure thing.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Transparency anyone?
“Hispanic members, abortion-rights opponents, supporters of “single-payer” healthcare and liberal members are all clamoring for the chance to offer amendments to the landmark legislation. Some want to change the bill, while others want to make a point or gauge support for their proposals.
“But Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a key player in the healthcare debate, said Friday he doesn’t expect those groups will have much of a chance.
“…Miller and fellow leader Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the dozens of closed-door caucus meetings and private consultations between leaders and the different sub-groups of House Democrats are replacing the need for amendments to be debated and voted upon on the House floor.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65635-rep-miller-no-amendments-likely-on-healthcare-bill
Isn’t it legitimate to see the bill or understand Reid’s terms for debate before voting to allow debate to proceed?
Well they can’t end the drama too soon – they’ll never get picked up for another season. On the other hand if they draw it out for too long, it gets to be too Sam and Diane.
SBJ… it is up to Pelosi to decide if there are any amendments allowed. She said yesterday that she has not decided that yet.
I hear and read a lot that there is no transparency on HCR, but how can that be when every part of this process has been amplified and scrutinized by both sides.
“but how can that be when every part of this process has been amplified and scrutinized by both sides.”
The same damn thousand pages that senators are whining about reading are available to be read by anyone, I believe.
And the right has not one leg to stand on when trying to talk about “transparency.” Not after the way they acted when they had the majority: locking rooms where legislation was laid out so that Democrats couldn’t read it before voting; holding votes at midnight so that as few people showed up as possible, especially if they were Democrats, and then there was all the legislatin’ by way of Executive Order by their pretzeldent.
“I hear and read a lot that there is no transparency on HCR, but how can that be when every part of this process has been amplified and scrutinized by both sides.”
You’ll note that both bills were written by the leaders in secret, closed meetings. We do not know what arguments were made for what positions or why certain things were included or not included.
“The same damn thousand pages that senators are whining about reading are available to be read by anyone, I believe.”
What we are interested in knowing is why certain items were NOT included.
“And the right has not one leg to stand on yadda yadda.”
The Republicans were wrong to do these things – since when do two wrongs make a right?
@ SBJ: Booo!! Isn’t it time for a movie quote or a link to a cartoon? Oh I know, it’s time for you to tell us how you aren’t Republican. Booo!! Now run and hide.
“since when do two wrongs make a right?”
You don’t notice these things, but the Democrats don’t act like that when they have the majority and I’m not saying they should. I’m saying that since the GOP did sct like that, then it’s colossal hypocrisy for the right to complain about transparency.
That’s what ‘they don’t have a leg to stand on’ means. Are you a computer program? You seem to be completely devoid of understanding of idioms or indeed, any color in language at all.
This is kind of scary in a way, top 10/11 reasons Repubs. should support the house bill, of course they probably need to read it first. They actually got a lot of what they would like to see in HCR.
“This morning, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) characterized the entire House health care bill as a “government run insurance 2.0.” “I mean, what we are seeing here is, you know, government-run insurance, mandates for businesses, an enormous tax increase, most of which or at least half of which will be paid for by small business owners.” But Pence and the Republicans should actually read the bill before dismissing it. For while the party may oppose the bill’s provisions to tax the top 0.3% of Americans to fund reform or the new fees imposed on the pharmaceutical industry to help close the donut hole in Medicare Part D, on the whole, the 1,990 page bill is a fairly moderate proposal that incorporates numerous conservative policies.”
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/top-10-reasons-why-republicans-should-support-the-house-health-bill/
Here’s #2, sbj, you need to read the 11 reasons.
2. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – REDUCE COSTS OVER LONG TERM: “Nevertheless, House Republicans recognize the need to lower health care costs.” [Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), 9/9/09]
HOUSE BILL – REDUCES COSTS OVER LONG TERM: Encourages payment reforms that can help lower costs. Requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish specific benchmarks for expansion of the Accountable Care Organization, Payment Bundling, and Medical Home pilot programs. The bill will also slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6% annually to 5.3%.”
sbj
“What we are interested in knowing is why certain items were NOT included.”
What specifically? Have you read the bill yet?
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
SBJ… you are right the final “merged” bills were decided on by the leaders of both houses. The initial bills that were considered for the merging came from sub-committees. If I am not mistaken a large portion of that sub-committee work was done in public.
To your point about wanting to know, in great detail, what went into creating these bills and what was left out and who argued what really wouldn’t change the outcome. Democrats have the majority in both houses so they get to decide how the bills get crafted. Same was true under Republican leadership. But what is also true is each member of Congress gets to vote for or against the final bill.
“To your point about wanting to know, in great detail, what went into creating these bills and what was left out and who argued what really wouldn’t change the outcome.”
trollus pilisplitticus or hairsplitter troll.
Tena-
You crack me up. “Sam and Diane”. LOL!
Chuck – I’m so glad somebody gets me once in awhile.
“trollus pilisplitticus or hairsplitter troll.”
Hahahaha. Nailed.
lemme see, she’s polling behind “Generic Repub” in AR, where Agric. is her constituency. she recently ‘lucked in ‘ to the Senate AG Comm. Chair and she’s making noises about something that could put her Chair in play ?!?!?
what a first string dumbass
Here is a great piece on Reid fighting back against the stall tactics surrounding Presidential nominees. Let’s hope this gets more traction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/reid-to-push-dem-senators_n_340089.html
Sen. Shadegg from AZ says the health care debate is more important than 9/11. Too bad the Repubs suddenly care after making a mockery of the debate for months and contributing absolutely nothin’.
“I think this is, probably, in terms of legislation affecting the lives of average Americans, the single most important moment in our lifetime,” Shadegg said of the debate over health reform legislation before Congress.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/65665-shadegg-says-health-debate-more-important-than-911
Thanks for the link. I couldn’t agree more with this comment from that story:
“Congressman Shadegg’s gave not only an apples vs. oranges comparison but a bizarre one at best. Sept. 11 stands alone as a tragedy of historic proportions and should not be used to dramatize his political views,” said Jennifer Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party.
Andy
I’m really amazed by the whole debate. If we get a decent bill and people like it, they’re really going to look like idiots on the wrong side of history, AGAIN.
Imsinca… I agree. But I am not convinced we’re going to get a good bill without a lot more hard work being done. I just read this and it reminds me that the devil really is in the details.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/heres-lowdown-are-affordability-credi
Early Happy Hour roundup, all:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/happy-hour-roundup-no-biden-doesnt-care-what-cheney-thinks/
I know Andy, they keep weakening the subsidies to keep the darn thing budget neutral. No choice really when they couldn’t seem to get the Dogs to go for the best PO. I just keep hoping they’ll keep improving it, but there sure aren’t any guarantees. I have a 30 year old daughter who desperately needs insurance though, so we’ll take just about anything. I know there are a lot of people in the same boat, who can afford insurance but just can’t get it.
So Lincoln want to “avoids creation of a new government health insurance plan that places Arkansas and American taxpayers at risk.”
Hold on. Isn’t the purpose of a “new government insurance plan” to provide a check on private insurers and get them to lower costs and make premiums more affordable, thereby lowering the subsidies needed to allow people to comply with an insurance mandate?
The “blue dog” stance that they want lower risk to the taxpayer yet oppose a public option seems utterly inconsistent to me. The subsidies are a part of the bill whether the public option is a part of it or not. Anything that lowers the needed subsidies helps taxpayers. If Lincoln thinks the public option will somehow cause premiums to rise overall, she should explain how. Otherwise, I don’t see how her position makes sense.
“to provide a check on private insurers and get them to lower costs and make premiums more affordable.”
Unfortunately, a PO that is not tied to Medicare rates will have no impact on private health insurance premiums. Per the CBO. In fact, they say that even if tied to Medicare they would expect the PO to be only 10% cheaper than private.
“Unfortunately, a PO that is not tied to Medicare rates will have no impact on private health insurance premiums. Per the CBO.”
I just heard about the CBO report, and Ezra Klein tries to explain why that’s the case at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/wil_lthe_public_plan_have_high.html
But if the exchange has sufficient risk adjustment features, it could prevent the public option from becoming a dumping ground for high-risk individuals and therefore not make premiums worse.
So I still think any statement denying support for a public option in any form because it will raise costs is simply not responsible. It really depends on the form it takes and the parts around it, such as risk adjustment. (For another example, allowing anyone into the exchanges a la Wyden-Bennett would increase the public option’s bargaining power instead of limiting participation in the exchanges to a small fraction of the public as is proposed today.)
Have you ever defined what a “moderate” Democrat is supposed to be? For instance, is Chuck Schumer or Kirsten Gillibrand “leftist” Democrats or “moderate” Democrats? Just curious, since I don’t think Kent Conrad when I think “moderate.” I think conservative.