Burris Threatens To Filibuster Health Care Without Public Option

Nearing a tenuous agreement on health care reform that is likely to hobble or abandon the public option, Senate leaders now face another filibuster threat -- this one from the left.

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who has said for months that he would vote against any bill without a public option, went a step further on Tuesday night, vowing to support a filibuster of the final bill delivered from conference with the House should it lack a public plan.

"If we have to get 60 and it comes back and it does not have a public option in it, I will not vote for it. It will still take 60 votes to pass it," Burris said at a rally for public option supporters across the street from the Capitol. As he was speaking, the so-called "gang of 10" was meeting to cut a deal -- and the public option.

"If we don't pass a meaningful health care reform bill in this session, we are all going to hang separately," Burris said. "I've listened to my constituents."

Senate leadership has taken the threats of Burris, and fellow public-option advocates Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), less seriously than those of conservative Democrats and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who reiterated Wednesday that he will filibuster any bill with a public option in it.

They will, however, likely need the votes of every last public-option supporter to defeat a filibuster of the final bill. Burris, who like Sanders originally supported a single-payer system, said he is done compromising on the public plan.

"Understand that I have drawn a line in the sand," he said. "I'm not much of a dealmaker in this regard."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[milesz]

06:39 AM on 12/10/2009

Senator Burris should be congratulated if he holds to his word, as promised. He, together with Senator Sanders, is doing what politicians should be doing---what is right for his constituents and what is right for the country. It has been too many decades where every single American has been "screwed" by the insurance industry and if the likes of Senator Burris does not stop it, heaven help us all when it comes to health care reform.

[GeoLee]

04:12 AM on 12/10/2009

Burris is going to demand that Obama campaign for him to get his vote. What has he got to lose...he saw how it worked for others.

[OldBro70]

09:07 AM on 12/10/2009

I may be mistaken but didn't Senator Burris announce that he would not be running for reelection after his term was over? So now he wants to stand on principle like that other senator from Conn. and threaten to filibuster health care without a public option.

Would someone please tell Sen. Burris to follow the program, and don't go thinking for himself. The reform is needed not his principles nor his threats.

[deliciae]

11:59 AM on 12/10/2009

Burris is not running for re-election.

[OldBro70]

04:45 AM on 12/11/2009

Thanks for the confirmation.

[ipastor01]

03:19 AM on 12/10/2009

There will be no Public Option. There will be a bill, but it will be Sen Snow's bill more than it will be the Democrats....better than nothing.

Burris is only trying to save his seat, even after all that it has happen, and why not? He has nothing to loose and he can really squeeze the Dems for support in the 2010 election if they want him to vote for it OR his filibuster will be equally as valuable to a Senator who has no support from his party, but many big pockets wanting him to do just this.

[mendelcrosses]

07:23 AM on 12/10/2009

"Buris is only trying to save his seat"

You dont think then that, at least a public option should be what the American people deserve?

[ipastor01]

11:35 AM on 12/10/2009

I think we deserve single payer, that is not what we are going to get with or without Burris, but it is clear that Burris is looking out for Burris.

[1murillo]

02:54 AM on 12/10/2009

Burris will be bought off with something soon. It won't take much to twist his arm. Reid and others have thought of him and (we'll soon see) will easily have him quietly within the 60.

[frankbaldwin]

02:49 AM on 12/10/2009

Good for Senator Burris. Thank you very much Senator.

[FogBelter]

02:16 AM on 12/10/2009

Lieberman has met his match.

I hadn't thought much about Burris, but Obama probably should have. I recall when Burris was standing in the rain plaintively asking to be sworn into office. I remember the way Reid said he would never swear Burris in. I remember how proud the Democrats were in ostracizing Burris when he first arrived.

Well, as they say, payback is a bitch.

I don't believe there is anything that the Democrats can offer this man to make up for the way they humiliated him. So, there better be a Robust Public Option in that bill somewhere or the party is over.

This is truly an interesting development.

[1murillo]

02:57 AM on 12/10/2009

Lieberman hasn't met his match. Lieberman is still a very good politician - he knows how to work the system - Burris is taking advantage of a moment's opportunity. Lieberman will stay around for years yet Burris will be here only through his current term.

[FogBelter]

03:19 AM on 12/10/2009

But Burris has the White House by the short hairs, whether he serves 30 years in the Senate or 1. Burris has the power to kill this Bill, and since without a Public Option it is just a giveaway to the health care industry anyway ... it might not be such a bad thing.

[Osusuki]

03:30 AM on 12/10/2009

And he knows it, which makes him dangerous and powerful. He literally doesn't have anything to lose. Heh, heh, heh...

[polwonk]

11:50 PM on 12/09/2009

Who'd of thunk!! Thank you Senator Burris for standing up for the right thing. Now it's up to the Progressives to hold some feet to the fire, not only in Congress, but also the administration. We voted for a person to lead this country, and so far Obama has been a tepid leader, at best. Let,s turn the heat up!!

[max hp]

11:31 PM on 12/09/2009

One the most honest statements.

He's got NOTHING to lose.

I hope he keeps his word.

[socalsek]

07:34 PM on 12/09/2009

I'm grateful for Burris' stand. I'm so tired of the argument, "Let's get something passed and we'll tinker with it later." Are we kidding ourselves? We've got a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. Do we really think we will be able to tinker with it later? C'mon!

[Anym]

07:38 PM on 12/09/2009

Yea and the minute the GOP gets into power the bill i going to be stripped of any good it might be able to do.

[Peter Noble 2]

11:26 PM on 12/09/2009

Then Americans will have to consider another way, as voting clearly brings nothing but stalemate. We need a second revolution.

[OldBro70]

09:19 AM on 12/10/2009

Medicare was tinkered with later it was not perfect when first established.

[globality]

07:19 PM on 12/09/2009

Senator Burris.

You have nothing to loose. They soiled you reputation and now you can show the world that there is a Senator that will stand on principle

[GeoLee]

04:15 AM on 12/10/2009

He has nothing to tighten, either . If you are going to post, please learn the difference between lose and loose. IT makes you look rather poorly educated when you use the wrong word. Burris has nothing to lose.

[globality]

11:24 AM on 12/10/2009

At least I can spell the word "that" (one of the most used in the english language)
from your previous post

"OH, there were plenty of sarcastic remarks and I made some of them. Like the fact thta laura seemed to have one style in 8,000 colors."

BTW I speak 6 languages and English is not my native language.

[Anym]

07:09 PM on 12/09/2009

Who knew that Blago's last big act as governor the appointment of Senator Roland Burris would be the greatest gift to progressives in the country.

It's time for this bill to go down, it is no longer a health care reform bill it is now a health insurance bailout bill, and Burris, Sanders and others are right to filibuster it into the ground.

[meko]

06:33 PM on 12/09/2009

Affordability was a primary reason for health care reform. Nothing in the post-public option plan would ensure affordability. Everyone would be forced to purchase insurance from private monopolies who would be allowed to charge whatever premiums they wanted with whatever deductibles they wanted.

We're told that letting the people who are not eligible for group plans who are between 55 and 64 buy into Medicare would lead to Medicare for All, but does that make sense? Why would monopolies with a captive consumer base EVER let the healthy ones get away? And if only the sick ones are allowed to go to Medicare, then GOP prophesies are true, Medicare will go bankrupt.

The plan under discussion is only good for insurers. Good for Senator Burris for taking a stand.

[reddflagg]

06:47 PM on 12/09/2009

Exactly. I cannot see how this bill will help anyone but the insurance mafia. I have been without health insurance for almost twenty years, and I would prefer that no bill pass rather than have this monstrosity pass.

[Mister Wu]

07:23 PM on 12/09/2009

Strangely, I agree.

[Chernynkaya]

06:25 PM on 12/09/2009

The Social Security Act was passed by Congress as part of the New Deal and signed by Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits. Jobs that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

__1950 inclusion of domestic labor, household employees working at least two days a week for the same person were added in, along with nonprofit workers and the self-employed.

__1954 Hotel workers, laundry workers, all agricultural workers, and state and local government employees were added in.

__ 1956 Disability benefits were added

__1961 Retirement at age 62 was extended to men.

__1962 Benefits of covered women could be collected by dependent husbands, widowers, and children.

---1965 MEDICARE was added.

__1972 The bill also set up a cost of living adjustment (COLA) to take effect in 1975. Amendments also established the Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Immigrants who had never paid into the system became eligible for SSI benefits when they reached age 65. SSI is not a Social Security benefit, but a welfare program, because the elderly and disabled poor are entitled to SSI regardless of work history.

__1977-1990’s Amendments regarding the indexing of payments and dealing with the Trust Fund were enacted.

Would Burris have filibustered the original Social Security bill?

[meko]

06:29 PM on 12/09/2009

Do you think that Social Security benefits would have been extended if we had mandated that all indivduals purchase IRAs from securities firms?

Because I think that once we force all individuals to purchase insurance from private monopolies at whatever premiums they want to charge, with whatever deductibles they want to set, they aren't going to let anyone go until they are old and sick. They'll let the people they don't want go into Medicare, but they will never extend it to the young and healthy.

[Chernynkaya]

06:34 PM on 12/09/2009

I am opposed to mandates to purchase private insurance. I will pay a fine before I comply with that, and we don't know it it's in the final bill. I am for mandates to purchase medicare or a public option (government insurance pool.)

[reddflagg]

06:39 PM on 12/09/2009

You mean to say that we should applaud a bill that gives an enormous amount of our money to insurance companies and their owners yet we may need to wait seventy years to have a health care system that covers everyone, like most countries have had since around the time of the first Social Security bill? This is a good idea? Hoorah for Sen. Burris!

[Chernynkaya]

06:49 PM on 12/09/2009

I am hardly applauding. Just trying to keep a perspective. Why is there this black and white feeling? Just because I don't like this bill doesn't mean I will never vote again. And if I point out the reality of trying to change HCR, does that make me in favor of what we will get?

[Floridafish]

05:36 PM on 12/09/2009

Thank you Senator, more people like you are needed in DC. For someone that came into the Senate under such controversy it's good to see that you are in deed there to listen to you supporters. The rest will have to wait until election time to hear theirs.

[mendelcrosses]

07:44 AM on 12/10/2009

Now you understand why they never wanted him there.

[postman66]

05:36 PM on 12/09/2009

I'm from Illinois and have followed Roland Burris for 30 plus yrs. He's a fraud and a bIowhard. He will not filibuster. The man built a monument at Oakwood Cemetary for himself the size of the Great Pyramids with more bloviating bullchit then I have ever seen. He is Peter Principle personified.

[stevensnell]

05:53 PM on 12/09/2009

Out of fairness, the monument he built to himself was a lot smaller than the pyramids. Of course, I haven't built any monument to myself at all...

[meko]

06:24 PM on 12/09/2009

Governor Ryan did his best work after he'd destroyed his reputation. It wasn't until he knew it was inevitable that he would be known for corruption that he decided to put a moratorium on executions in Illinois. By that time, half the men on death row had been exhonorated.

But he only did the right thing when he couldn't get away with doing the wrong thing anymore.

Sure, Sen. Burris is under wire tap. Yes, he doesn't have a great reputation. So now, when all hope is lost, he does the right thing. Yay!

[busman]

06:31 AM on 12/10/2009

agreed. Thank you Sen. Burris for listening to your constituents.