Letters And Whip Counts-- Public Option Is Chugging Along Despite GOP Hysteria

Eric Cantor & Paul Ryan have a health care plan

Thursday I got into an argument with a friendly Inside-the-Beltway Democrat who kept referring to the furthest right members of the Democratic House caucus-- Parker Griffith (AL), Scott Murphy (NY), Chris Carney (PA), Glenn Nye (VA), Bobby Bright (AL), Dan Boren (OK), Travis Childers (AL), Gene Taylor (MS), John Barrow (GA)-- as "moderates." If these dyed-in-the-wool reactionaries are moderates, what does that make the actual middle of the road Democrats, the real moderates? Are they leftists? Socialists? Communists? I'm talking about actual centrists like Vic Snyder (AR), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Doyle (PA), Ed Perlmutter (CO), Paul Hodes (NH), Brian Higgins (NY), even Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (MD). These are old school centrist Democrats-- as far from progressive idealistic progressive stalwarts like Donna Edwards (MD), Raul Grijalva (AZ), and Barbara Lee (CA) as they are from the aisle-crossing proto-Republicans like Barrow, Bright and Griffith.

The Populist Caucus is an interesting mixture of Democrats. There are some from the party's left wing, like Keith Ellison (MN) and Jan Schakowsky (IL), some Blue Dogs like Leonard Boswell (IA) and Mike Michaud (ME) and plenty of solid moderates like the caucus' chairman, Bruce Braley (IA). They sent a letter to the Democratic House leaders yesterday standing up for a strong public option. Theirs was a quintessentially moderate approach, not something any rightists like Parker Griffith or Gene Taylor or Heath Shuler is going to ever sign onto.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer:

Thank you for your leadership as we work towards comprehensive healthcare reform. As members of the Populist Caucus, we write in support of a strong public option as a vital part of any healthcare reform bill that is passed by the House. This option should compete on a level playing field with private insurance, maintain a minimum standard of benefits, provide quality care, reimburse providers equitably and adequately, and address current geographic disparities.

Over the past decade, increasing healthcare costs have outpaced inflation, raising costs and lowering the quality of life for many American families who struggle to afford their medical care. The House's work to date on healthcare reform is commendable and shows promise at fixing a system which will only grow more expensive and less responsive to the needs of patients if unchecked. To ensure a check on the current system, and to have maximum effect, any healthcare reform considered by the House should contain a public option.

The public option is an effective compromise and stands as a middle road to health care reform, allowing citizens who enjoy their current coverage to keep private insurance, while providing a quality, lower cost alternative to interested citizens.

Once more we ask that you take the necessary steps to include a strong public option in any healthcare legislation brought before the House. Thank you again for your continued leadership and please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Bruce Braley, Chairman, Populist Caucus
Peter DeFazio, Vice-Chair, Populist Caucus
Keith Ellison, Vice Chair, Populist Caucus
Betty Sutton, Vice Chair, Populist Caucus
Bob Filner
Leonard Boswell
Jan Schakowsky
Michael Michaud
Lloyd Doggett
Phil Hare
Hank Johnson
Steve Kagen
David Loebsack
Carol Shea-Porter
Peter Welch
John Yarmuth
Eric Massa

Similarly, another group, 51 House members-- from across the ideological spectrum, progressives to Blue Dogs-- sent another letter along similar lines to Pelosi and Hoyer:

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer:

We write to reiterate our strong commitment to health insurance reform legislation that includes a robust public health insurance option that will provide greater choice and lower costs for American consumers by injecting much needed competition into the health insurance marketplace.

A critical goal of health care reform should be to lower costs for individuals, small businesses and the federal government.  In 1980, the U.S. spent more than $250 billion, or 9 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), on health care.  In the decades since, that figure has grown to more than $2.2 trillion (16.2% of GDP).  By 2018, it is expected to nearly double again to $4.3 trillion (20.3% of GDP).  Also during this time, the American people have seen premiums more than double since 2000 while wages have stagnated. Our families and small businesses have paid the hidden costs-- to the tune of approximately $1,100 per family-- that are the result of subsidizing treatment of the uninsured. These facts underlie the need for the public option and health insurance coverage for all American as the best way to reform our inefficient and bloated health system, and reduce the burden placed on America's families, small businesses and the federal budget.

The public option is not a pathway to government-run health care for everyone, it is simply another choice for people who need health insurance. We fail to see any reason why we should not seek to increase Americans' health insurance options.

When weighed against other ideas, the public option remains the most effective tool to bring about competition, choice, efficiency, transparency and cost reduction in the marketplace.  Thank you for considering our views and recognizing the need for a strong public option in any health reform legislation that comes to the House floor.

Sincerely,

Diana DeGette (CO)
Lois Capps (CA)
Chris Murphy (CT)
Jared Polis (CO)
Mary Jo Kilroy (OH)
Mark Schauer (MI)
Pal Tonko (NY)
Kurt Schrader (OR)
John Sarbanes (MD)
Betty Sutton (OH)
Ed Perlmutter (CO)
Kathy Castor (FL)
John Yarmuth (KY)
Peter Welch (VT)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH)
Joe Courtney (CT)
Steve Cohen (TN)
Joe Sestak (PA)
Jane Harman (Blue Dog-CA)
Gene Green (TX)
Adam Schiff (Blue Dog-CA)
Ed Markey (MA)
Steve Israel (NY)
Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME)
Rush Holt (NJ)
David Wu (OR)
Jay Inslee (WA)
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL)
Neil Abercrombie (HI)
Steve Rothman (NJ)
Mike Doyle (PA)
Jim Langevin (RI)
Charlie Gonzalez (TX)
Gregory Meeks (NY)
Doris Matsui (CA)
Nita Lowey (NY)
Gary Ackerman (NY)
Howard Berman (CA)
Patrick Kennedy (RI)
David Price (NC)
Anna Eshoo (CA)
Norm Dicks (WA)
Eliot Engel (NY)
Laura Richardson (CA)
G.K. Butterfield (NC)
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)
Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)
Martin Heinrich (NM)
Gerald Connolly (VA)
Dan Maffei (NY)
Judy Chu (CA)

And the Progressive Caucus sent a letter to Pelosi signed by enough members vowing to vote no on a bill without a public option to kill it if leadership gives into pressure from the members trying to please corrupt corporate donors from the Insurance Industry and the Medical-Industrial Complex, particularly bribe-taking Blue Dogs like Mike Ross. Yesterday Chris Bowers at OpenLeft and Greg Sargent at the Plum Line looked closely at the House whip counts and are certain that nothing is passing the House without a robust public option.

House progressive leaders have been counting up how many members-- beyond just progressives-- will support the strongest version of the public option, i.e., the one tied to Medicare rates plus five percent.

The number so far, a source familiar with the count tells me: 170 firm supporters. That’s way beyond the 83 members of the House who make up the Congressional Progressive caucus.

What’s that mean for the public option? Well, the bill needs 218 votes to pass. That means it needs another 48 Dems to get on board, out of another 61 Dems who are presumed gettable-- 23 Dems who are undecided, and another 38 who have not yet been asked their position, or “whipped.”

Sometimes people must wonder if the GOP is even part of the debate. They really do have no plan and, aside from sniping from the peanut gallery, they are taking no part in this debate at all.