You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
4 Dem Senators Pressure Reid to Use Reconciliation for Public Option
2010-02-17
Four Democratic senators, including two facing potentially challenging election campaigns this year, are asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use reconciliation, a procedural maneuver requiring only 51 votes, to push for a public health insurance option.

Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) signed a letter to Reid saying they support this plan for four reasons: the cost savings the public option is estimated to achieve, continued public support for the public option, the need for increased competition in the insurance market and the Senate's history of using the reconciliation process for health care reform.

"Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system," the letter says. "Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public's perception of it."

The letter points to the last CBS News/ New York Times poll that surveyed Americans on the public option, from Dec. 2009, which showed that 59 percent of Americans supported the public option.

Throughout the health care debate, Democratic leaders resisted using reconciliation for fear that bypassing a Republican filibuster would appear too partisan. The letter points out that the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) were all enacted under reconciliation.

In this month's CBS News/ New York Times poll, 37 percent of Americans said Congress was more responsible than President Obama for failing to pass health care reform. Half of Americans, meanwhile, said the filibuster -- which requires 60 senators to approve a bill -- should not stay in place, while 44 percent said it should.

The advocacy groups the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America, as well as Credo Action, the grassroots political arm of the for-profit company CREDO Mobile, are promoting the letter and calling on citizens to become signatories online.
Posted by:Fred

#7   poll that surveyed Americans on the public option, from Dec. 2009,

December is a looooong time ago. I'll bet polls taken since then had significantly smaller positive responses, no matter how carefully the questions were worded... and I'm quite certain there have been polls on the subject since last December -- this is a hot button issue played up in the blogs on both sides. The honourbable senators are cherry-picking.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-02-17 12:41  

#6  Â“The letter points to the last CBS News/ New York Times poll that surveyed Americans on the public option, from Dec. 2009, which showed that 59 percent of Americans supported the public option.”

The fact that these folks hang their hat on such a bogus poll shows their unbelievable desperation. Whenever these Senators are asked to define a “public option” they stammer and ramble on about multiple versions with a myriad of characterizations. Because there is no single definition, no one (including the proponents) actually knows what a “public option” really is. In other words, all this poll proves is that if you ask people if they would like “free stuff” from the government generally they will respond positively.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2010-02-17 10:31  

#5  Bennett of Colorado is going to get a LOT of pissed off people visiting his local offices over this one. I'm half tempted to visit with a sign... attached to a baseball bat.

These arrogant bastards just don't get it - they keep cramming this down on us, they will eventually force us to resort to violence.

Posted by: OldSpook   2010-02-17 10:13  

#4  Public Option can save money, since those plans would be subject to HHS approval of procedures etc. that would be covered, with no oversight of HHS rules. It's rationing, in disguise. Rationing may very well be necessary in the end, but I think it should be discussed openly, not enacted blindly.
Posted by: Glenmore   2010-02-17 08:42  

#3  Abu,

you may be right that Gillibrand and Bennet are short timers but as of now they are both running hard to be elected

of course the pretense that the public option will save money has been rebutted by none other than the CBO (but libs believe nonetheless)
Posted by: lord garth   2010-02-17 05:46  

#2  Their "four reasons" make them look like they're from a parallel universe - but not really parallel.
Posted by: Bobby   2010-02-17 05:45  

#1  Bennet and Gillibrand are short-timers for sure. both interim appointments that will not be there after November. don't know the other 2, but this looks like smokescreen. if things get hot, no risk to the rest of the Dems. if the rubes aren't paying attention, the they can (will)go the reconciliation route.
Posted by: abu do you love   2010-02-17 00:49  

00:00