Senate aides say Reid doesn’t have the votes for opt-out public option

By John Byrne
Monday, October 26th, 2009 -- 5:49 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

Harry Reid 090515 Senate aides say Reid doesnt have the votes for opt out public optionAnnouncement cheers progressives; AFL-CIO may compromise on tax

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may have jumped the gun.

Fresh on the heels of announcing that he will include an opt-out, government-run insurance plan in the Senate health overhaul, the New York Times and Washington Post reported that Reid had not secured every Democratic vote needed to ensure the bill will make it to the Senate floor.

"Senate aides said Monday that Mr. Reid was several votes short," the Times said.

"Reid has carefully canvassed the Senate in search of 60 votes," added the Post. "So far, he has not locked down commitments from every Democrat, Senate sources said."

Story continues below...

Reports over the weekend suggested that President Barack Obama favored a different plan for the public option, one that would be triggered only if private health insurers did not meet certain goals. The White House communications director dismissed the stories as "absolutely false" rumors late Sunday.

Critics said Obama hadn't thrown his support behind the opt-out option because he was concerned that it would not have enough votes to pass, and was interested in trying to bring Maine's Republican senator on board. Reid met with Obama last Thursday; his announcement follows this story.

One Administration reportedly said Reid's decision to include the public option was "dangerous," according to CNN.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has repeatedly said that Reid is near the 60 votes needed, and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who recently defected from the Republican Party, has said he doesn't believe Democrats will defect when the plan is put to a filibuster vote, though the bill may receive fewer votes when it's finally voted on.

Reid's announcement has won praise from liberals, and may have even opened the door to compromise from labor unions, who had opposed the idea of a tax on high-cost insurance plans.

"The AFL-CIO said Monday it might accept a tax on high-value insurance plans if the tax didn't hit the middle class," the Wall Street Journal said.

As expected, Reid lost the vote of the sole Republican who supported the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill, which did not include the public option.

“I am deeply disappointed with the majority leader’s decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation,” Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) said in a statement, and she said that Mr. Reid had missed a chance to keep her on board.

“I still believe that a fallback safety net plan, to be triggered and available immediately in states where insurance companies fail to offer plans that meet the standards of affordability, could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate,” Snowe added.

Replied Reid: "I spoke to Olympia on Friday. I've talked to her on a number of occasions. And at this stage she does not like a public option of any kind. And so we'll have to move forward on this."

Reid's decision, however, instantly won acclaim from liberals, who have voiced frustration with Reid's leadership in the Senate.

MoveOn, Families USA and Health Care for America Now all endorsed Reid's move.

The Times added: "Such praise was expected to lift his political prospects back home in Nevada where he is up for re-election next year."

"Today Senator Harry Reid delivered for the American people," declared a recommended blog post on Daily Kos. "He sent a bill to the [Congressional Budget Office] for scoring which includes a public option, and doesn't include health insurance industry-favored triggers, which would basically enable the insurance industry to continue to increase premiums and squeeze the American middle class."

"By taking this strong stand, over the objections of the White House and the powerful health insurance industry lobby, Harry Reid is ensuring that millions of Americans will be able to access the doctor," the blogger added. "He's ensuring that cancer patients will no longer have to fight with their insurance company over unjust denials, and will instead be able to focus on beating their disease."

Public option proponents say that it will save policyholders money, since a public insurer won't have to compete for profit margins. Opponents argue that it will lead to a government takeover of health care.

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the bill a “thousand-page, trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, raises taxes and slashes Medicare for our seniors to create new government spending programs.”

This video is from MSNBC's News Live, broadcast Oct. 26, 2009.

Correction: Due to a typographical error, an earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Sen. Arlen Specter's home state. Specter represents Pennsylvania.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • davidrvelasquez
    Fuck the Times and their pro corporate slant. And fuck Olympia Snowe (we don't need the republicans for this).

    Any healthcare overhaul bill that doesn't include a public option is a serious waste of time and money...and a betrayal of the american people.
  • vlom2441
    In the nearly 21 years since the 1st Session of the 101st Congress in January 1989, Democrats and Republicans have evenly split control of the Senate, with about 10.5 years apiece. Although Republicans were more likely to pass legislation without 60 votes, both parties passed an equal amount of legislation -- 418 bills for Democrats, 421 for Republicans.

    Of the Democrats' 418 bills, just 31 -- 7.4% -- were passed with fewer than 60 votes. Meanwhile, of the Republicans' 421 bills, 55 -- 13.1% -- were passed with fewer than 60 votes.

    These numbers put the lie to the claim that the Senate never passes legislation with fewer than 60 votes. In fact, they do regularly pass legislation with fewer than 60 votes, and Republicans have done so nearly twice as often as Democrats.
  • dan
    Only Democrats need sixty votes to avoid a non-existent filibuster. The GOP got to do their thing, with 50 plus Cheney. Remember the "nuclear option?"
  • gmkuhn
    > Times: public option doesn't have the votes.

    Of course public option has the votes.

    As JB and RawStory reported on Oct 20, 57% of the public supports
    public option.[1]

    We are not confusing "senate votes" with "votes" are we?

    Have we forgotten that the 16 most populous states are
    downweighted so much in the US senate that these states'
    68% of the US population only gets 32% of the senate vote?[2]

    Have we forgotten that the 40 GOP senators who make public
    option an issue represent only 33% of the population, while
    the 60 DEM senators represent 67% of the population?

    Without the undemocratic weighting of our population
    in the US "senate", we might have had a public option long ago.

    The headline should say

    Times: public option doesn't have the senate votes

    And then we could start thinking: what are we going to do about that?

    [1] http://rawstory.com/2009/10/clear-majority-publ...
    [2] www.stmartinsystems.com/070831_US_CofC_educatio...
    www.stmartinsystems.com/070831_US_CofC_educatio...
  • damixaustex
    Increase the number of Senators to 6 or 8 or 16 per state and give them term limits.

    The Senate was devised when the total population was 3 or 4 million and life expectancy was 35.

    I'm sure it was thought we needed to get the most out of wise old 30 year olds, but when they said no term limit they had no idea they were talking about a crusty 65-70 year old eventually making millions working in the Senate.
    Senators become too powerful, too connected.
  • vwcat12
    I wondered what new rumor the media or opposition or whoever was going to put out after the presser today.
    Now we know.
  • geezykreezy
    You know what, I'll take your stories more seriously when you figure out what state Specter is from.
  • progchris
    Why the drama? Either we have the votes or note. Are we teasing the other side thinking it was close or they won???!!! More rope-a-dope.
  • roland99
    If the New York Times had been a responsible newspaper, they'd have been reporting on the Single Payer option (H.R.676) instead of scuttling articles about it.

    Perhaps then the U.S. would be on the right track to the only fix that will work. Medicare for all.
  • DownriverDem
    When are "we the people" going to prevail? Support for the public option is over 60%.

    Keep the calls and emails coming. They worked. We need to keep up the pressure.
  • douvie
    If Obama is so concerned that the votes do not exist for a public option, opt-out style, why the hell doesn't he arm twist. Isn't that his job? Lyndon Johnson, where are you now that we so desperately need a leader instead of this little girl scout.
blog comments powered by Disqus