Page 1 of 1

#1 Public Option Fails in Finance Committee

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:09 pm
by Derek Thunder
Sources: Talking Points Memo DC

2:43 PM EST:
After debating all morning and well into the afternoon, the Senate Finance Committee voted against an amendment, written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) that would have added a public option to the panel's health care reform bill.

The final vote was 8-15 with 5 Democrats--Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT)--voting with all Republicans to kill the proposal.

Next up, Chuck Schumer's more modest public option proposal.
3:42 PM EST:
The Senate Finance Committee can't even endorse a modest public option like Chuck Schumer's. Citing his belief that a public option can't pass on the Senate floor "at this time," Finance chairman Max Baucus joined two Democrats and all Republicans in voting down the amendment, which failed 10 to 13.

Joining Baucus on the Democrats' side of the dais were Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and, by proxy, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) who wasn't present for the vote.

There will be no public option in the Finance Committee's health care bill.
Going back to a conversation I had a few months ago with Magithis,

Image

Is it finally time for drastic measures against a system that seems to be dead set to represent the interests of capital against the interests of everyone else?

#2

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:34 pm
by The Minx
Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), may they all be tossed out next election.

I don't care if it means more Republicans in the Senate, the Democrats would still have a majority, and there would be fewer people like these to poison the party and weasel their way into powerful committee positions.

#3

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:45 pm
by Derek Thunder
The Democrats would still have a majority in the strictest sense of the word, but they've proven entirely worthless with a 60-40 majority. They won't do any better with a 55-45 majority. However, it seems unlikely that these particular individuals will be removed, as they can now count on effectively unlimited donations from the health care lobby (already the case for Max Baucus, as he's received more money from that lobby than any other senator). Combine that with the likely removal of limits on direct corporate spending on elections, and you're essentially looking at a two-party system composed of business-friendly blue dogs competing with business-friendly republicans. The only point of departure between the two will be meaningless "cultural" issues.

The odds of getting better democrats aren't especially high either. Rahm Emmanuel and the White House have made it clear that primaries against blue dogs in the House and Senate will be actively discouraged. The current chair of the DNC is no Howard Dean, and liberals are rapidly losing influence in their own party.

E: What we're essentially looking at here with the Baucus bill is one of the largest transfers of wealth and government money to the private sector in US history. No caps on cost, no power to negotiate for drug prices, no public option, individual mandates without employer mandates, it's never been a better time to work for a health insurance provider (and by work I mean sit in upper management or be a majority shareholder).

#4

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:41 pm
by frigidmagi
Let's wait to see what actually clears Congress before we commit. Between this and Hollywood I feel sorely vexed however. It's like every elite/elitist group in the country is making a play to be held above the law. If it's not actors, it's bankers, if it's not directors, it's insurers.

#5

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:56 pm
by SirNitram
There was one more Public Option amendment that Baucus booted along last week. He promised he'd run it for a vote today.

Now it's not voted on because he decided to vote for a 2-2: 2 dem, 2 Rep.

Nelson and Baucus are on record as refusing to vote for any public option. Why? Baucus: It won't get sixty votes(Thanks to me not voting for it!), Nelson: It needs 65% approval(DIE, CONSTITUENTS, DIE!).

BOth were elected after running on 'conservative' agendas. We now have proof: Modern conservative agendas, it seems, are about screwing taxpayers sideways.

(BTW: THe Baucus bill as he presented EXEMPTS all big businesses from standards of insurance policies.)