Source: Senate Leadership Also Counting Votes On “Trigger,” And It’s Closest To 60 Votes
HuffPo is reporting that Harry Reid believes that he’s close to having 60 votes for a public option with an opt-out clause. And TPM is reporting that the White House is pushing back, instead prefering a public option with a so-called “trigger” that could win over Olympia Snowe.
Here’s my contribution: I’m told that the trigger is much more in the mix in the Senate than people think — at least in vote-counting terms.
According to a plugged in Senate Democratic aide, Senate leadership aides are also counting Senate votes for the trigger, because they want to know which version of the public option can get through the Senate.
And in a development that may upset progressives, this aide says, the trigger is actually closer to getting 60 votes in the Senate right now — it’s two or three votes away — than the opt-out option is. (One complicating factor here: Senator Jay Rockefeller has said he won’t vote for the trigger.)
The Senate leadership, the aide says, is counting up support for all the options — the trigger, the opt-out, and even the opt-in, where states would decide whether to have a public option.
This doesn’t necessarily mean, by the way, that there’s a strong chance Reid will go with the trigger in the end — the aide says he just wants to know how many votes there are for every option.
But this info complicates the picture considerably: It suggests that there’s not a clean showdown between the pro-opt out forces on the one side, and the pro-trigger forces on the other. It also means there has been no decision by leadership what it will support, and there won’t be until there is a clearer sense of how much support each version has.
*********************************************
Update: Rockefeller is not committing to voting against a trigger, so I removed the reference to him above. Also edited a bit for clarity.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
In other words, they don’t have 60 votes for anything?
In other news, doesn’t this fit the prevailing definition of “obstruction” around here?
“It appears House Democrats will likely not allow a vote on an amendment that would strip abortion funding from HR 3200…Although a coalition of pro-life Democrats is hoping for a vote, it appears none is forthcoming….In a new report issued today, the Associated Press makes it appear that’s not going to happen.
“Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail, since it likely would attract the votes of most Republicans as well as some Democrats. So Democratic leaders won’t let Stupak offer it,” AP indicates.”
sbj — no 60 for anything yet.
Greg, you write, “in a development that may upset progressives.” I’m thinking it’s really time to lose the macro on this. I’m starting to want a really good health care bill as much to get rid of the progressive whining as for the bill itself. Jeez. Where’s Tena?
ABC — Tena is traveling, she’ll be back soon…btw, I owe you an email, apologies. back to you today later/tomorrow
@Greg: Regarding those one or two or three votes – do you think it will possible to simply buy them as they did with the stimulus vote?
Couldn’t you interpret all of these leaks that they are short one or two votes as simply a way to cushion the blow if Reid has to go with the Baucus bill?
Rockefeller did NOT say that he wouldn’t vote for cloture for the trigger, he just said he wouldn’t support the trigger.
I say for this bill put the trigger in while the House will have the robust public option. Than in conference there is a possibility that there will be the “Opt-out” as the compromise.
“In other news, doesn’t this fit the prevailing definition of “obstruction” around here?”
I don’t expect you to understand how governing works. You are, after all, a Republican.
Negotiating contents of a bill to bring to the floor is not obstruction.
Saying NO to any bill that isn’t written in its entirety by the insurance companies… is obstruction.
Trigger Schmigger. Sherrie, can they compromise that much in conference and still hope to get the Senate to vote for something better? I’m not so sure.
BTW, Of course they’re closer to 60 with a Trigger because it means no PO at all and they all know it but somehow they think they can get away with it. Hopefully, Reid will keep pushing or start pushing a real PO and force a cloture vote.
As Far as I am concerned; They can do with Their Trigger, what Roy Rogers did with his; Stuff It!
Looking forward to it, Greg. And if anybody wants to read a particularly disingenuous and depressing defense of the health insurance industry, check out the Ed Haislmaier part of a discussion on last night’s NewsHour. He’s from the Center on Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. discussion:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec09/antitrust_10-22.html
“Negotiating contents of a bill to bring to the floor is not obstruction.”
And here I thought preventing a vote when a majority approved was “obstruction.” I’ll have to buy that dictionary you use – the one that contains ever-changing definitions of convenience.
Sorry. Trying again with that link. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec09/antitrust_10-22.html
Could you write something about just what the trigger might be? I’d be okay with something like “as soon as one person declares bankruptcy due to medical bills …”
SBJ, What you think, has no bearing on anything.
You usually think in lockstep with Bilgey, Huge Baby, and Quarterbrain. You are known by the company you keep, and you keep hanging around with that Confederacy of Racist Dunces!
Here’s just one reason why the “Trigger” is a terrible idea. I hope Obama isn’t really into this too much, although it sounds like he still wants to keep Snowe in the game. Waste of time in my opinion.
“Runaway health costs are a grave and growing threat to federal and state budgets and to the health security of workers, their families, and their employers. Waiting longer than absolutely necessary for affordable coverage is certain to cause great harm. Indeed, it might actually compound the current crisis. Without an imminent threat of public plan competition, private insurers are likely to raise premiums in anticipation of the implementation of reform—as suggested by AHIP’s recent prediction of big premium increases if reform passes. Delaying a public plan may also jeopardize the cause of reform itself, because requiring Americans to buy unaffordable coverage has the potential to provoke a political backlash. (Polls show that Americans are more supportive of a mandate when they know they will have the choice of a public plan.)”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/trigger-happy
“A handful of centrist senators from both parties met this morning to discuss withholding their votes to send a healthcare overhaul bill to the floor if it includes provisions they disagree with, such as a public option.
“Their concerns might undermine Democratic leaders’ hope of convincing wavering members to vote to avoid a filibuster and allow limited debate whether or not they agree with the overhaul legislation.
“I’ve not said that my cloture vote is a given, and I’d be very concerned about a cloture vote if I believe the underlying bill is something I can’t live with,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.”
Via Weekly Standard:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/centrists-uneasy-with-speedy-bill-merger/
I say push them to the limit on cloture and let them show their true colors. A Trigger is a joke and we all know it. The public wants a strong PO if they’re going to cram mandates down our throats and it will be political suicide to vote with Republicans on a filibuster. IMHO.
The President needs to put the needs of all the people before that of Senator Snowe. She is not worth torpedoing real reform for.
A bill with just a trigger option, would be worse than no bill at all.
I agree Liam, it’s useless unless it can be compromised out later with something better, but I don’t see that happening. If it’s true that Obama is more worried about Snowe and looking a tiny bit bi-partisan, we’re pretty much screwed. She’s the same one who weakened the Stimulus along with Collins.
It’s sad that a handful of moderate Republican DINOs are causing so many problems for the Democratic agenda.
In a perfect world those DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) will be lose primaries to better Democratic legislators.
See: http://www.actblue.com or look up the PCCC, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/21594
But the worst case scenario is that those DINOs, who are at least moderate Republicans would lose to the right wing extremists, corporatists, and theocrats that completely control 98% of the Republican Party*.
* The two Republican Senators from Maine are the only exceptions in the Senate, both are traditional Conservative Republicans (not part of the extreme, corporatists, or theocrats that now controls the Republican Party).
It’s sad that a handful of moderate Republican DINOs are causing so many problems for the Democratic agenda.
In a perfect world those DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) will be lose primaries to better Democratic legislators.
Look up: actblue or the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (urls removed to post).
But the worst case scenario is that those DINOs, who are at least moderate Republicans would lose to the right wing extremists, corporatists, and theocrats that completely control 98% of the Republican Party*.
* The two Republican Senators from Maine are the only exceptions in the Senate, both are traditional Conservative Republicans (not part of the extreme, corporatists, or theocrats that now controls the Republican Party).
And TPM is reporting that the White House is pushing back, instead prefering a public option with a so-called “trigger” that could win over Olympia Snowe.
That’s a mistaken strategy. Triggers become excuses to do nothing.
Isn’t it telling that the main-stream-media only believes in ‘bipartisanship’ when Democratic leaders are in charge?
During the Republican reign the main-stream-media characterized the Republicans complete lack of bipartisanship as ’strong’ and ‘taking charge’ and ‘leading’.
But when the Dems are in charge the mainstream media bends over backwards to push right wing points of view and repeatedly attacks the Dems anytime the Dems take charge and show strong leadership.
The MSM is choked by right wing enabling trolls that can’t even tell the difference between a Republican Propaganda channel (FOX is literally run by Republican media strategist Roger Ailes who worked for Republicans Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Giuliani) and a legitimate, “just the facts”, news organization.
Under the current system people who get sick, get punished.
The democrats will rue the day if they decide on the “trigger” in lieu of the public option. A trigger is nothing more than kicking the can down the street. It will do nothing to reign in costs nor create competition. The conditions in Senator Snowe’s trigger plan are set so high that it pretty much guarantees the status quo will stay in-tact.
I equally dislike the public option with an opt-out clause because governors and legislators in red states will use that to prove their credentials are bonafied conservative. The base will demand it.
The ramifications will be far reaching for not only the people who need access to medical care and affordable insurance the most, but for those who don’t. In other word: everyone.
Health insurance and medical expenses are unaffordable as is. People are going into bankruptcy. People are dying. The people have been punished for far too long. So if the democrats pass a bill containing a mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance without a public option included to contain costs there will be a huge public backlash.
Bottom line: Either do right by the people this time or lose the next election.
serena1313:
“I equally dislike the public option with an opt-out clause because governors and legislators in red states will use that to prove their credentials are bonafied conservative. The base will demand it.”
Would some facts maybe influence the way you feel about this?
There are three states that offer versions of Universal health care: Maine , Massachusetts and Tennessee.
All three programs are in financial trouble. Cutting benefits and raising charges to their “consumenrs”.
Now assuming that you do not live in one of those three states, would you willingly acquiesce in having your own state’s revenues taken to bail out those states’ programs?
Even if your state could afford such a subsidy to other states’ citizens,(and we know that California, for instance, can’t afford it’s OWN bloated government and entitlements).
The militant right wing extremist bilgewater wants to break up America into little pieces.
And now he’s trying to scare Americans into abandoning the over 44 THOUSAND Americans who die each year because they lack health insurance?
Yo, bilgewater, maybe if the Republicans hadn’t lied us into the Iraq War and borrowed over a 1/2$ TRILLION to pay for it (AND then Republicans ran US even further into trillions more in debt}, we’d have enough money to pay for health care for every American for the next 50 years or more.
Oh, but that’s right, bilgewater’s anti-American advocacy would chop up our country and leave thousands of Americans to die.
The big question is, why would anyone follow any advice of right wingers like bilgewater?
Thanks for this information. My sister has been wondering about this topic for a while.