Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races
$
John Larson
(1st CD)
$
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)
$
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)
$
Jim Himes
(4th CD)
$
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)
$
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Larson: "We Have The Votes" For Robust Public Option, Himes Not One Of Them

by: tparty

Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 15:08:48 PM EDT


Friday Morning Update: Politico reports that Speaker Pelosi is conducting a "public" whip count of the entire Democratic caucus on the Medicare +5 bill this morning, "behind closed doors in the Capitol basement."

---

Roll Call reports that House Democrats have are confident they have the votes they need to pass a "robust" public option:

House Democratic leaders sounded bullish Wednesday after launching an all-hands-on-deck effort to win support for a "robust" public insurance option in their health care bill.

"We think we have the votes now," Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) told reporters. "We have the votes to pass a robust public option."

Larson cautioned that the details were still being worked out, and Democratic aides said Members were still being whipped at press time and did not release a tally.

If true, this is encouraging news for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that progressives in the House led by Speaker Pelosi have stood their ground, helped by the fact that the "robust" public option reportedly came back scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit more than any other plan:

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month....

Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.

The whip effort described by Larson is an internal one, making it difficult to discern who the holdouts in the Democratic caucus are. And as Larson points out, the count is still ongoing, making this one of the very last moments in the process in which pressure can be effectively applied before the House bill goes to the floor.

Open Left has attempted to compile a list of Democratic targets in the House on the "robust" public option -- Representatives who are deemed to be undecided or either "leaning" yes or no on the matter.

While the provenance of the Open Left target list is unclear, it's all activists have to go on at this point. The only "undecided or leaning" name from Connecticut on the list (pdf here) is Jim Himes. While this does not at all signify that Congressman Himes would vote against a "Medicare +5" plan, he did seem to indicate in his op-ed on health reform in August that his preferred approach was the "level playing field" public option.

Reached for comment today, Rep. Himes' Communications Director Liz Kerr confirmed that he is still undecided on the Medicare +5% public option:

"The Congressman, as he has stated before, supports the inclusion of a public health insurance option that operates on a level playing field with private insurance companies. He is still studying this specific proposal."

We are at the point in the process where every lawmaker's opinion and every moment counts in order to makes sure the House passes the strongest possible bill going into the inevitable conference committee compromise.

If you want to urge Rep. Himes to support a House health care reform bill with the robust Medicare +5% public option, you can call his DC office at (202) 225-5541.

tparty :: Larson: "We Have The Votes" For Robust Public Option, Himes Not One Of Them
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
2010 (0.00 / 0)
Next election I won't be pollstanding in Bridgeport for 10 hours. Maybe Dana will.

One thing I've learned about Jim Himes (0.00 / 0)
...is that he's very measured in his decisions, and he tends to wait until ALL the details are worked out before promising how he'll vote.

Quoted above: "Larson cautioned that the details were still being worked out..."

That's what it is. Jim is waiting until those details are worked out before promising his vote.  I dunno, but the fact that he actually considers the small details reassures me.  

Let's wait until he votes before we get all our undies in a bunch.  We've had eight long years of reactionary leadership under Bush...I'm willing to give the guy some leeway for now. I suspect he'll do the right thing.


Connecticut Bob


This is a whip count effort (4.00 / 1)
If Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the whip, the robust public option will not even be put to a vote. Which is why the timing here is so critical  - a decision on which merged bill comes to the floor could be made very soon and every reps declared position matters.    

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (0.00 / 0)
I agree that whip counts are important in getting things done in the House.  But I also find it refreshing that a congressman is taking the time to actually read and understand the bill that is placed before him.

Look at how much criticism Congress suffered when they approved the final version of the bailout without sufficient time to go over it. Nancy Pelosi is a smart woman; she'll accept Himes's response in the spirit in which it was given, and she'll likely count on his vote when the bill is finalized.

Besides, John Larson above is already publicly announcing they have the votes. He's been around long enough to know whether it's going to work out or not.

Connecticut Bob


[ Parent ]
Other sources indicate (0.00 / 0)
That the outcome of the whip effort is actually still quite uncertain.  

[ Parent ]
None of us can even be certain (0.00 / 0)
what they are asking them to pledge support for. If it turns out to be based more on the weaker bills in the Senate I'd be happy to watch it die.

As it is? I ain't worrying too much about it until it gets out of conference. If it is that bad at that point? There is always the Weiner Amendment and the Kucinich Amendment. And a whole slew of money party candidates to take it out on.


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media


[ Parent ]
To add (0.00 / 0)
Congressman Himes has no problem declaring his support for a bill with a public option "that operates on a level playing field with private insurance companies" despite the fact that such language has also not been finalized.  

[ Parent ]
"Bending the Cost Curve" (0.00 / 0)
I lost my secret decoder ring -- does that mean support for a low-cost insurance option for everyone, or does it mean just making sure the final bill helps less people?

If these dudes would just vote for the things they claim to want when it gets put into legislation, we'd be in a pretty good place. This legislative calvinball drives me nuts, though.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...


[ Parent ]
Legislative Calvinball... (0.00 / 0)
Hahahahahaha...

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Bob I spoke to quickly. He probably will vote the correct way. Thanks for setting me straight.

Jim Himes is now included in the Robust List, Med +5% (4.00 / 2)
..in Chris Bower's updated list.

http://www.openleft.com/upload...


Good to know, but (0.00 / 0)
+5 defeats the meaning and intention of robust.


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media


[ Parent ]
+5 (0.00 / 0)
What's the meaning of "+5"? Years until implementation = never? Pay-boost to physicians of 5%... when others are having to settle for 0% these days?

[ Parent ]
In Medicare, (0.00 / 0)
the government has decided how much they'll pay for certain kinds of doctor visits, surgeries, etc. A Medicare +5 plan would set the payment rates for equivalent services (for all the non-seniors in the public plan) at what Medicare pays plus 5%.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Med +5 (0.00 / 0)
OK, so we pay MDs more to treat those under 65 (or whenever). I don't mean to be crude, but is this a kind mild version of a death panel enforced by physicians' greed where it's advantageous, albeit slightly, to give care to a certain segment of the population?

Sounds more like the AMA and other groups are delivering a "bonus" to their ilk in order to sign up. Can you see it now? I have x number of hours, I can choose whether or not to take a certain patient and I decline if s/he's over 65?

Harebrained, methinks, in these troubled times to reward/bribe a group of caregivers into signing on.

Oh, well... someone told me it was politics as usual.


[ Parent ]
um (0.00 / 0)
Doctors are already accepting lower payments from Medicare than they are from private insurance. Medicare +5 is still less than what they're able to get out of Aetna or what have you.

Insofar as doctors accept fewer senior patients because of Medicare reimbursement rates, a new +5 public option isn't going to somehow institutionalize it more.

Calling it a "mild version of a death panel" is not crude, it is wrong (though in the way that gets people published in the New Republic.) And calling this a giveaway to the AMA is also wrong -- there is nothing on the table from any quarter that is less (financially) generous to doctors than this proposal, most especially specialty care providers. You could correctly identify a lot of giveaways to a lot of sectors of the medical economy in the overall bill, but saying that Medicare +5 is a sop to the AMA is nuts.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...


[ Parent ]
Statistcs show that the Medicare version (0.00 / 0)
doctors are having big problems with are the "privatized" versions of it like "Medicare advantage" because the insurance companies are denying and delaying payments:
What's beautiful about the Medicare Advantage program is that it has provided us with a real-life laboratory experiment which allows us to compare the functioning of highly-regulated private insurance plans as contrasted with the functioning of a public insurance program: traditional Medicare. The results are in, though that would be tough to ascertain if you simply observe the response of Congress.

What have we learned? The private plans take away the choice of health care providers that the traditional public program offers. The private plans insert intrusive interventions between the patient and the physician - interventions that are not found in the public plans. Private plans divert more resources to excessive, wasteful administrative services while increasing the administrative burden on the health care providers and on the public stewards who must provide oversight of our tax dollars that are diverted to this industry. Private plans also provide more entry points for the criminal element to cheat the taxpayers, patients, and providers. And for this we are paying far more of our tax dollars than we do in the traditional Medicare program for comparable levels of care. The obvious lesson is that we should dump the private plans.

Those are talking points in your comment that have been debunked over and over again with simple known facts.


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media


[ Parent ]
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Chris Murphy for Senate
- Susan Bysiewicz for Senate

- William Tong for Senate


Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin



More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox