ObamaCare: Counting on the “Public Option”
posted at 10:35 am on August 18, 2009 by Karl
Given all the talk about the fate of Democrats’ government-run health insurance proposal, it is worth taking a moment to look at where vote counts stand in Congress.
In the House, Democrats need the support of at least 15 of 52 Blue Dogs. An IBD survey, combined with news reports, turns up four Blue Dog supporters of the current House bill, and at least 13 Blue Dogs opposed to it. IBD’s list includes Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL), who says he cannot support the current House bill, even though he was re-elected last year with 62% of the vote in his district. But it also includes nine Representatives who have supported the “public option,” if not the full bill. Given that the “public plan” is one of the most contentious points of the debate, that sounds like 13 of the necessary 15 votes (unless it gets tripped up on tax and budgeting issues, which seems unlikely in the House).
As for the Senate, Open Left’s Chris Bowers and FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver both try to get to 50 votes for the “public option,” but neither can quite get there… yet. Strangely, Silver at one point suggests that it is “far from clear” that 50 is the magic number, but ultimately concludes that the “public option” needs at least 50 votes worth of support overall. Indeed, for procedural reasons, Silver thinks a government-run plan needs the support of a majority of the Senate Finance Committee, but so far seems to have only seven of the 12 votes it will need.
That is not a shock. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the Budget Committee chairman and a key Finance Committee member, reiterated the point over the weekend, much to the chagrin of the HuffPo’s Ryan Grim and at least one peeved (but anonymous) Democratic leadership aide. They may wonder where he is getting his whip count, but they forget that Conrad’s co-op trial balloon was launched in June on behalf of the G-11 — the key Senate powerbrokers on health care. Accordingly, Silver may be right to infer that Conrad’s comments mean that Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus is lukewarm at best on the “public option,” and that swing Senators have said privately that they would prefer a bill without it.
Given the current state of play, the Right may feel encouraged, but those numbers are still too close for comfort. It is no time to take the heat off Congress opposing a government-run insurance plan.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Keep up the heat and the light. Sunlight makes the best disinfectant.
txmomof6 on August 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM
May I suggest that Obamacare is very much like stepping in dog excrement – you need to need to do a lot of brushing and cleaning to get it off your shoe before the stench and the “mess” it causes are finally eliminated.
Chainsaw56 on August 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM
you mean its that close in the house? good grief! thank goodness i read that because we’re having a townhall with Perriello (democrat, 5th CD, Virginia) tomorrow. he says he has no opinion (uh huh) & can’t support death panels & won’t vote for it if abortion is fed. funded, blah, blah.
we’ll just have to focus on “kill the bill”. its easier on all of us.
kelley in virginia on August 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Why does it require drugging these Democrats to make them realize they are NOT supported in this? It should not be so frustrating just to get a paid representative to listen. Shouldn’t reps be our lobbyists?
leftnomore on August 18, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Interesting that all this political capital is being spent on the public option when the most contentious issue has yet to be debated: funding for abortions. Maybe they should have done that first and they could have saved themselves all this grief.
Dee2008 on August 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM
While I agree, the officially titled “public option” is something we should continue to fight against, having it ‘removed’ is only, at best, a mushy win. The Healthcare/Insurance/Whatever Reformers will simply rename it — “co-ops”, for example, which are reminiscent of the Freddie Mac debacle. Everyone seemed approachable on the idea of co-ops about a month ago, yet that’s exactly what Freddie was, and that was a frickin’ disaster!! Government needs to stay out of healthcare – in its entirety. Don’t take this as a win until its shelved entirely – just like Hilary-care.
*sigh!* I won’t feel safe coming back from this battle until power shifts from the far left in Congress and someone else sits in the Oval Office. I’m in this battle for the long run, because Hisself truly believes in Marxism and truly believes that he knows better than we peasants. As do 99% of the rest of our ‘representatives’.
WraithRat on August 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Look all of this is BS. If this was such a great plan for the nation there would be no need for vote counting.
When Medicare was passed there was no need for any whips because they got broad bipartisan support, had the state governments on board, and had public support for the plan. They have none of those now and this is a more onerous and disruptive power grab.
elduende on August 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM
They didn’t bring it up because the plan was to sneak it in via the public option and get around the Hyde amendment. Now if public option is off the table they may not be able to sneak it in. This might explain some of the hysteria on the left for insisting on the public option.
txmomof6 on August 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Hahahahahahahaha! Umm… sorry. Yes, they should be our lobbyists, but usually aren’t. Currently they are BO’s salesmen. Most of our reps have simply been in office too long. They have a distorted view of the American People. It’s our own fault, because most Americans really are very tolerant. But enough is enough. It’s time to vote most everyone out of office and start with some new, fiscally responsible representatives.
j_galt on August 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I ran across this and I’m wondering if we will be expected to pay for the health care of anchor babies across the border as well as illegal’s in the US.
From El Universal (Mexico City) 8/17/09
He pointed out that these children who were born in the United States and who have returned to Mexico “are practically non-existent as far as the educational and health systems, which reject them because they cannot prove their Mexican citizenship.”
http://m3report.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/a-honduran-comments-on-u-s-immigration/
makaput on August 19, 2009 at 5:21 AM