When in doubt, I turn to Chris Bowers. He didn't disappoint me - he had ready a step-by-step explanation of what needs to happen to get the public option in the bill sent to the Senate floor:

The bad news is that we learned today that the Senate Finance Committee will not report a public option in its version of health care reform. The good news is that we also learned today that there are 51 votes in favor of Schumer's public option. Here is how we get to 51:

1. Take the 47 "yes" votes from the Washington Independent public option scorecard.
2. Add Bill Nelson and Tom Carper, who both voted for Schumer's public option today;
3. Add Claire McCaskill (who voted for Kennedy's HELP public option back in May);
4. Add Joe Biden

Arguably, proving that there are 51 votes in favor of Schumer's public option is the bigger news. This is because everyone knew the public option would be defeated in committee, but claims that there were 51 votes in favor of a trigger-less public option were pretty much all based on a post I wrote two weeks ago.

Because Democrats are not going to pursue reconciliation for the public option (see why here), the next step in the process does not actually involve Kent Conrad's Budget Committee, as I had previously reported. Instead, a source on the Hill confirms to me that the Senate HELP and Senate Finance committees will be merged by an informal, behind the scenes process involving the four major players in the Senate: Tom Harkin (Chair of HELP), Max Baucus (Chair of Finance), Harry Reid (Majority Leader), and the White House. Together, these four will meet and decide what sort of bill to send to the Senate floor.

Continue reading »

Every once in a while, Sen. Jay Rockefeller remembers the people who sent him to represent them and does them proud. Yesterday was one of those days:

Mr. Schumer said the public option would hold down costs because it would not have to generate profits, answer to shareholders or incur marketing expenses. His proposal would have required the public plan to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than setting prices based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Under Mr. Rockefeller’s plan, the payment of doctors and hospitals would have been based on Medicare rates for the first two years.

Mr. Rockefeller said the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that a government insurance plan could slice $50 billion from the cost of Mr. Baucus’s bill, originally put at $774 billion over 10 years. The budget office predicted that eight million people would initially enroll in the public plan — about one-third of those who would seek coverage through new markets, or insurance exchanges.

“The public plan will be optional,” Mr. Rockefeller insisted. “It will be voluntary. It will be affordable to people who are now helpless before their insurance companies.”

From the West Virginia MetroNews:

Senator Rockefeller argued for his Consumer Choice Health Plan until the end. "It's a very serious decision," he said as the hours of debate came to a close. "It's a moral decision. It's an ethical decision. It's a human decision. It's a health care decision. It's writ large in our legacies."

The failed proposed public option program, as Rockefeller envisioned it, would have competed directly with private plans in a national health insurance exchange for those who do not have insurance. The CCHP would have been required to meet the same insurance regulations as private plans and be financially self sustaining.

"I think it's a real solution to protect American families and their economic security," Senator Rockefeller said early in the day on Tuesday. "I do not understand why we wouldn't do this."

Senator, campaign contributions aren't as huge a distraction to someone who grew up with money. If you really think about it, the answer's right there.

But thank you for your efforts.

Kagro at daily kos is sick of the umpire talk in the Sotomayor hearings. In fact, it was always a ridiculous argument, first forwarded by the disingenuous now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During his 2005 confirmation hearings, I wrote about how disingenuous Roberts was to use the analogy:

It is an interesting analogy Judge Roberts draws. And it seems to me to be an excellent argument for why Judge Roberts must answer the questions put to him by the Senate. As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers" umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is important that we know what Judge Roberts' "strike zone" is. His record, the part that was not concealed by the Bush Administration, gives many of us pause regarding Judge Roberts' "strike zone." His stated antipathy for the right to privacy, for voting rights measures, for discrimination remedies, etc., demands followup. What does your "rulebook" say about these things Judge Roberts?

Senators Feinstein, Whitehouse, Schumer and Durbin all pointed out today that Chief justice Roberts was less than honest about what his judicial strike zone would be. In that sense, the umpire analogy still has its uses.