Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Leaked: More Than Fifty House Progressives Privately Commit to Oppose Weak Health Care Bill
Progressive Democrats are taking a hard stand on health care reform, with a majority committing to oppose any health care reform package that doesn't include a robust public option. On Wednesday, they got an inadvertent assist by an anonymous leak of their "whip list."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from left, is joined by other House Democratic leaders, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Pete Stark of California, Henry Waxman of California, Charles Rangel of New York, and John Dingell of Michigan, in a news conference, announcing the introduction of health care legislation on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, July 14, 2009, in Washington.
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) A whip list, which is generally tightly guarded, is used by
congressional leaders to keep track of the private pledges made by
members before a vote. The list is kept private to encourage frank
answers from members so that leadership can gather accurate
intelligence.
The whip list was obtained by Joan McCarter, a DailyKos contributing editor. It names fifty members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) who have firmly pledged to oppose any bill that doesn't meet the group's standards. Without those fifty votes, Democrats would be unable to pass the reform effort without Republican support. (Once Judy Chu is sworn in, there will be 256 Democrats, and one "closet Democrat"; 218 are needed for passage, leaving Democrats 12 votes short.)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) is in charge of keeping the whip count for the CPC. Watson spokeswoman Dorinda White confirmed that the list is accurate but slightly out of date and that more members have since confirmed that they'll oppose the bill if it isn't firm enough.
The CPC laid out its requirements in a June statement, demanding a strong public health care option that is available immediately. See the statement here.
Progressives can now argue that the fate of reform depends upon including a strong public option. Or, alternatively, moving far enough in the GOP's direction to pick up support from the other side.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said previously that a bill without a public option "wouldn't have the votes" in the House -- a diagnosis that appears accurate in light of the CPC whip list.
Earlier Wednesday, Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a health care leader in the Senate, said he'd rather have a good bill than a bipartisan one. "A good bill that is bipartisan obviously has a chance of not only succeeding but also being sustained, so there's a value in achieving that bipartisanship," he said, adding, "I will not sacrifice a good bill for that. That's not the goal here."
The House bill, which is being negotiated by three separate committees, is likely to be more progressive than whatever emerges from the Senate. The toughest negotiations, then, will be between the House and the Senate. With progressives swearing not to vote for a weak compromise between the two chambers, the House has a strengthened hand.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of Ways and Means, one of the three relevant committees, said on Wednesday that the major fight will not be compromise among the House panels. "Submerging [the three committee bills] into one is not nearly going to be as difficult as bringing the House and Senate together," he said. "That's going to be a major problem because we are attacking the problem from such a different angle."
The blog FireDogLake has been publicly developing its own whip list, attempting to get members of the CPC on the record opposing any bill without a robust public option. Activist Mike Stark has been filming the responses of members. They're currently at nine"yes" and 25 "leaning yes."
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a key progressive Democrat, has also been quizzing fellow members on tape as to their position on the public plan.
FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher speculates that the list was leaked in response to pressure from the blogosphere.
"They didn't like Mike Stark nailing them on video so they wanted strength in numbers," she said.
- Posted in
39 Comments so far
Show AllThe time has come for the weathiest country in the world to have adequate, affordable health care. Anything less than single payer or a public option is not worth it. If we can bailout Wall Street we can bailout sick Americans who can't pay for their care.
The irony is that single payer would cost less than any other "solution". Unfortunately Congress will never order the Congressional Budget Office to release a financial analysis that would allow for an apples to apples comparison of costs.
Absolutely correct.
The president says that we should not have a single payer system in our country because it would go against the "tradition" of private care that has evolved over the decades. This tradition of course is one of financial ripoffs and denials of necessary care in pursuit of massive profit. We simply MUST continue these despicable "traditions" in our country. Because we have always allowed these atrocities we must CONTINUE them, no matter how many people are hurt.
The more that comes out of the big "O's" mouth the happier I am that I didn't vote for him. "Tradition" ha, wouldn't a break with tradition be "the change we can believe in"?
Please remind everyone you can what Obama said publicly about single payer back in 2003:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
At one time, our country had a "tradition" of slavery, not allowing women the right to own property, and denying the vote to women, African-Americans, and Native Americans.
The time has come for the weathiest country in the world to have adequate, affordable health care. Anything less than single payer or a public option is not worth it. If we can bailout Wall Street we can bailout sick Americans who can't pay for their care.
The time has come for real democracy. That means that all "representatives of the people" should tell the people whether they're supporting the will of the majority of the people or not. BTW, the majority of Americans support public healthcare and have said so in poll after poll for the last few decades.
"BTW, the majority of Americans support public healthcare and have said so in poll after poll for the last few decades."
While this is correct, I'd suggest they do not support this pitiful excuse for more profit taking. Anything less than Single Payer is simply surrendering any hope of change.
nancy pelosi? she's my champion? hahahahahahahahahahaha...
these people would try to stop a car by pressing and pulling and turning and adjusting everything but the brake pedal...then, when shown the brake, and clearly explained the process and value of pressing it, they would bluster and fluster, continue to do everything but, and claim they're doing the best they can, given the circumstances...
some days I feel inspired, and others, just plain tired...
let's get those gardens growing...we're going to need to start sharing houses...perhaps we can start trading gardening assistance for shelter? as for healthcare, let's start with what we can do: getting our bodies in good, working order and cleaning up our environmental toxins...we're baking and eating a big, fat cancer cake and wondering why we're getting sick...
Good. Now let's just hope they stick to it and get something good out of this.
This shows where HuffPo stands: firmly on the side of "moderation."
Anything less that Medicare-for-all (HR676) is NOT progressive. A "robust public option" is no more real than "clean coal."
We can vote real progressives into office in the next round if enough of us break free of the duopoly's fear-trap.
The problem with being the "wealthiest" country, is that, as a country, we ACT like the wealthy in this country, in that the wealthy as a whole don't give a shit about the poor and middle class. That's not how they got wealthy!
Millions of us supported and voted for Obama to:
1. get rid of the criminal Bush regime
2. get out of Iraq and move away from perpetual warfare
3. bring SUBSTANTIAL healthcare reform
4. elect an African-American president to heal our wounded moral fiber.
OK - we got #1 and #4, but failure on the other 2 may please conservatives and the financial elite, but will totally alienate all of Obama's constituency.
Hmmm. I'm wondering what kind of political punishment ol' Rahm is planning for these apostates.
q
The only way to dramatically reduce health care costs is to get rid of the protection racketeers: the private insurance industry that skims off 30% of our health care dollars and provides nothing but mountains of costly red tape.
Now that's just unfair.
These fine U.S. businesses employ thousands in the function of denying claims, thus keeping the engine of the economy humming.
While I recognize the satire in this statement, it is partially true. A big part of the cost savings of a single payer plan are going to come from the elimination of a lot of bureaucracy, and that means jobs. While some of these people will be able to transfer to government jobs created by the new plan, the majority won't. It wont happen overnight, it will have to be something that is phased in over 5 years or so at least. Most of these folks are regular middle class average wage earners, they will have to find new jobs and will suffer through the transition. Unfortunately the jerks that got us into this mess will just suffer a cut in their bonuses.
Americans' health is more important than saving those jobs. There have been shake-ups before in our economy as conditions change and there will be more in the future. That's just the way it is. Examples: Millions of jobs lost in the 50's and 60's due to automation; tens of thousands of logging and timber jobs lost in the 80's and 90's because of restrictions and tighter supply; millions of jobs lost in the 90's and 00's due to globalization and outsourcing. All this and through it all, the economy just keeps rolling along.
Another effect of single payer will be people won't be enslaved to dead-end jobs that they are keeping only to have insurance. These people will be free to quit, and that will shake up the economy more.
In the long run, single payer will help the economy more than hurt. It will save American consumers and businesses money, get their medical needs met on a more timely basis, and make us more competitive.
But, they're not even talking about enacting single payer now. Because we have to "build on our traditions". I see. We can't very well abandon dyed-in-the-wool American traditions like bribing Congressmen and ripping of the public.
Jobs are not as important as a social safety net.
HR 676 takes the job loss into consideration. Those losing jobs will receive 2 years of income and free education or training during that time. Within 2 years, I believe that anyone with a background in medical billing or coding or processing for an insurance company should have found an even better job. Two areas that are not suffering from the loss of jobs are medical and accounting. These are great prospects for any of those losing their jobs. My daughter will be one of them, and she has already started planning for a new career.
What the 10:50 a.m. post said.
I must say that any attempt at healthcare reform other than Single Payer is running in place.
Anyone that buy's the "Public Option" cartoon of Nancy Pelosi needs their glasses checked.
Single payer is the only affordable option. Thats fact. None of the rest of their proposals are affordable...another fact.
Anyone that would follow Nancy Pelosi anywhere on anything is not a friend of the American worker and their fanilies because she does not want them to survive.
Let me see here;the prog. dems have 2 initials and the blue dog dems have 3 and the kicker rham so that they win by sheer numbers and besides p has pathetic,palaver,parvenu and more but you get the idea and,of course,the bd's have dogged,dirty,despicable and rham so by the virtue of numbers alone the bd's win and they still have rham.Tony
The "public option" could either be a bridge to a complete publicly funded seystem, or a deliberately designed-to-fail scheme to destroy any hope of publicly funded universal healthcare. Withiout very careful studying of the details, it's impossible to tell.
All I want is a Simple Single Payer, Medicare For All, and not
this Byzantine plot to sell us down the river to Big Insurance.
What you said, doubled.
Me, too, but you as well as I know this is nothing more than a pleasant pipe dream.
Yes, and the corporate propoganda team is busy brainwashing people daily. Michael Medved has a petition going on his website, encouraging people to sign to oppose changes to the health care system. I forced myself to listen to part of his show today (I want to hear what BS is being fed to the followers) and heard him attempt to debate a caller who disagreed with his views. Michael asked, "What's wrong with health care professionals making a profit?"- yes, I kid you not; the caller was giving the analogy about the police department and fire department, and Medved stated, "They don't work for free." Whenever someone tries to give an opposing viewpoint, he cuts them off or allows them to say just a bit, then always gets the last, lengthy argument without giving them a rebuttal. He also asked if, given the choice, if you had an illness- would you prefer going to a county hospital or a private, professionally run hospital with the best care possible... and a caller tried to give his opinion about that, but the point that was missed (and that Medved, of course, NEVER addressed) was not about CHOICE but about the right to receive the needed care. The caller should have asked- and maybe he would have, if he hadn't also been cut off before given the chance- Why are only the rich people and the ones with the best health care policies able to go to the top-notch hospitals while the poor, if they get care at all, don't have access to the same type of care?
I guess politics is the art of the possible.
Maybe an even MORE progressive Congress can revisit this issue in a few years.
Hmm, the AMA just endorsed the bill in full.
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow
.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/715-
house-hsr-letter_rangel-ama-endorsed.pdf
Whatever "public option" is finally defined and ordered into law, simply MUST be the ONLY health care insurance option provided to members of the Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive. For those individuals, specifically, this must be the ONLY option allowed them and any family members covered under their insurance policies. They MUST NOT be allowed to obtain ANY private insurance in addition to their mandated public option while employed by the U.S. government. This must hold true also for ALL federal government employees and retirees. If its good enough for them, then it will be good enough for ALL of us.
Anything that does not allow health care without private insurance should be voted down. That's the crux.
We should work on doing something like this with auto insurance, too.
Auto insurance, property insurance, crop insurance...
Beware of Sen Dodd, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
He has already collected more than a million dollars from his
benefactors. Based on past performance his paisans were AIG and the rest of the Banking and Insurance Companies. Although he
has allowed the Hartford Courant in on his total donations, he
has not made public who they are. Under the new Courant leadership, comments have been reduced to almost nothing, especially comments of Dodd in Dodd's hometown paper.
Let's forget Move-on and Move-out of the next election since
our fearless leaders have not learned from past elections.
If we, the working classes, sit out the next election and leave
the Dodds and the Dodd-wannabees to their own efforts, they
will lose the next election. We have been taken for granted for
much to long.
What matters most is how much hell the people raise. But the Huffington Post is trying to distract your attention from what matters most and onto what matters least: The elitist jerking-off among the carnival of chimps in Washing-town in the absence of a strong populist lever bearing down on them. Suggestion: Everyone bring out the crow bars and "make them do it", NOW.
No national health care plan is better than the passage of a privatization-only plan, because after privatization-only is in effect for a year or so, with the public now realizing that it's been had, and with pressure once again building for a single payer system, opponents of single payer will inundate us with "Told you so, told you so, government's the problem, not the solution", thereby turning the public not only against single payer, but against any government plan. What this means is that Congress gets but one shot at a national health care system and, if it squanders this opportunity by passing a privatization-only plan, goodby, so long, single payer, because we'll be stuck forever with privatization.