Today we lost two amendment votes in the Senate Finance Committee on the public option, one offered by Sen. Rockefeller (8 ayes, 15 nays), and one by Sen. Schumer (10 ayes, 13 nays). Traditional media outlets everywhere are reporting this is a massive defeat for the public option, but I don't see it that way -- in fact quite the opposite.
I have said before (most recently here) that the Senate Finance Committee was conservative, in fact the most conservative committee makeup in the Senate, and that we would be likely to lose these votes:
With numbers like this, and with the entire Democratic base mobilized intensely around the issue, you would have to be politically tone deaf as a Democrat to oppose this, but this is the Senate Finance Committee, so public option advocates are likely to lose these votes. The question, though, will be the margin. On a committee this conservative, far more conservative than the Senate as a whole, if we only get seven votes for the public option amendments, that would have to be considered a major political victory, and a sign that the public option can definitely get a majority vote on the floor.
So getting 10 votes on this is promising for those of us who believe a public option is essential. Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Carper, and Bill Nelson are five of the ten most conservative Dems in the Senate, and on the Schumer amendment, even two of them went with us. President Obama is for it, a majority in the House is for it, and the whip count we're running at OpenLeft.com shows that 51 Democrats are in favor of it. And today Tom Harkin confirmed that our whip count is right:
"I have polled senators, and the vast majority of Democrats -- maybe approaching 50 -- support a public option," Harkin said told the liberal "Bill Press Radio Show." "So why shouldn't we have a public option? We have the votes.
"I believe we'll have the 60 votes, now that we have the new senator from Massachusetts, to at least get it on the Senate floor," Harkin later added. "But once we cross that hurdle, we only need 51 votes for the public option. And I believe there are, comfortably, 51 votes for a public option."
Will all this evidence, the public option will only be hard to beat if Democratic leaders decide they don't want to do it.
For excessive wealth capitalism has always been, and shall always be, in a state of war with democratic equality. The goal of equality being to destroy excessive wealth.
Not complaining, mind you, but we did what we could from 300 miles away, in-home nursing, visiting companions, paying bills, home modifications to make it more livable, etc.. We spent six figures trying to keep her alive until we could sort out the insurance thing.
The lack of a public option is killing people, and it is affecting more people than just the uninsured. Friends and family are taking up the slack all over the country, and we need relief as well. I considered not posting this, because it almost sounds like whining. It's not. It's just that there isn't much being said about this collateral damage.
I've said this before... It seems that if they put a page in this bill that had the words "PUBLIC OPTION" typed on it... many of you would support it simply because "public option" is in the bill.
*Some restrictions apply. Physical examination required. Disqualifying factors include history of headache, sweating, aspirin use, childbirth, morning hunger, nocturnal fatigue, exposure to alfalfa sprouts, living within 8,200 feet of sea level, and foot odor. Premiums subject to change without notice. Payment by electronic fund transfer only. Consent of first mortgagee required within first 30 days. Coverage limited in states beginning with N, V, C, and D. $38,000 annual deductible.
"Alright, you dirty rats," Give us public option or a lot of people are gonna get hurt. No doubt.
Huffpost may not be able to print this comment. (heh)
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9735/kitteh.png