Special Classifieds Feature
Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more
RSS
Required Reading | RSS
Top Video | RSS
Trench Warfare | RSS
Blunder Box | RSS
Reader Picks | RSS
Staff Picks | RSS
Best of The Post | RSS
Punchlines | RSS
Down-Ballot | RSS
8 a.m. ET: An outcome that had been expected for weeks still generated a good deal of drama and post-game analysis, as Tuesday's defeat of efforts to add the public insurance option to the Senate Finance Committee's health-care bill pushed the reform debate into a new stage.
The Finance panel rejected successive amendments from Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer to create a public option, "dealing a crippling blow to the hopes of liberals seeking to expand the federal role in health coverage as a cornerstone of reform," the Washington Post writes. Max Baucus said he wants "a bill that can become law" and did not see enough support for the public option to get it through the Senate. Schumer agreed, for now: "We don't have the 60 votes on the floor for the public option. I will be the first to admit that." The Los Angeles Times reports: "It was the biggest setback to date for liberal Democrats, but did not kill the possibility of a public option being included in final legislation," Public option supporters will get several more bites at the apple: They can offer more amendments on the Senate floor (assuming, as most observers do, that Harry Reid will not include this element in the chamber's combined bill). Or they can fight for it during conference negotiations, since the House is still expected to include some form of public plan in its bill.
Still, backers of the public option were unhappy. Summing up sentiment on the Left, Jonathan Cohn writes: "This is not the slightest bit surprising. But it's still frustrating." Ezra Klein says that moderates should have been forced to sponsor an amendment to strip out the public option on the Senate floor. "Instead, Baucus and Conrad did the work for them, all the while protesting that they didn't oppose the public option," he complains. Conservatives agree that Tuesday's result was unsurprising, but for different reasons. "The public is not as dumb as it's made out to be," Holman Jenkins writes in the Wall Street Journal, arguing that the average Americans rightly see the public option as "a halfway house to a single-payer setup that liberal Democrats have always wanted."
The public option debate may be sidelined, but now the Finance panel must tackle hot-button issues like coverage for abortion and illegal immigrants. Does President Obama have a backup plan in the works? "The White House has been secretly drafting its own health care legislation that it may unveil at some point during the debate if officials believe it would help secure passage of a bill, according to sources familiar with the effort," Roll Call reports, intriguingly, but without details. Obama could help mend fences within his own party by urging liberal and conservative Democrats to stop attacking each other, but he "has never worked too hard to stop these intraparty attacks, and he's not about to start now," John Dickerson writes. The White House can at least take heart that public support for reform appears to be on the rebound. The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll shows the percentages of respondents who "want health care reform now" and think the country will be "better off" with reform have ticked up measurably since August, driven mostly by a shift among Republicans and independents.
In Geneva, diplomats will gather this week to debate how to handle Iran's defiantly active nuclear program. The New York Times writes that the discussion of Iran's ambitions is a reminder of the disastrous debate over Iraq's supposed arsenal of weapons: "Is the uproar over the secret plant near Qum another rush to judgment, based on ambiguous evidence, spurred on by a desire to appear tough toward a loathed regime? In other words, is the United States repeating the mistakes of 2002?" Members of Congress are busy drafting tough new sanctions against Iran. "A parade of bills in both chambers has drawn wide bipartisan support that suggests passage would be a cinch," The Hill writes.
At the same time, "The White House began its review of the Afghan war strategy in earnest Tuesday," the Wall Street Journal reports, with Stanley McChrystal meeting via videoconference with key administration officials. Obama will join the talks Wednesday, and you can view the complete list of expected attendees. The Washington Post paints a hopeful picture of the fight against al-Qaeda, writing that a campaign of better recruitment of spies and targeted airstrikes "has significantly reduced the terrorist organization's effectiveness." David Corn wonders if Obama is "serious about Afghanistan," and points out the administration's seemingly contradictory rhetoric: "What the Obama administration is finding -- or will find -- is that it's difficult to have a limited commitment to a war. After all, if a war is worth fighting, isn't it worth fighting for as long as necessary?"
By
Ben Pershing
|
September 30, 2009; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »
Go to full archive for The Rundown »
Posted by: aahpat | September 30, 2009 8:27 AM
WHAT GOOD IS HEALTH CARE REFORM WHEN A SECRETIVE FEDERAL 'MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM' IS DESTROYING THE LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS OF UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' AMERICANS...
...BY MEANS OF A GPS-ACTIVATED NATIONWIDE VIGILANTE ARMY;
CO-OPTED LOCAL POLICE;
COVERT PROGRAMS OF FINANCIAL SABOTAGE;
AND THE USE OF SILENT, INJURY- AND ILLNESS-INDUCING, MOOD-ALTERING MICROWAVE/ LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS' -- AGAINST UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
President Obama, AG Holder, SecHomeland Napolitano, SecDef Gates, DNI Blair must dismantle the nationwide, warrantless GPS-activated extrajudicial targeting and punishment matrix and remove from power the secretive executive branch officials who continue to oversee it.
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):
See "GESTAPO USA" at http://NowPublic.com/scrivener ("stream" or "stories" list).
Posted by: scrivener50 | September 30, 2009 9:21 AM
The majority voted for change and now we have turncoat Democrats refusing to give us the changes we need in health care. It is getting to the point where I ask myself "Why even bother to vote?" if the politicians are not going to do as the voters wish?
Posted by: Utahreb | September 30, 2009 9:51 AM
Why are advocates of the public option described as "liberals" when between two thirds and three fourths of Americans support it, along with two thirds of physicians?
Why do you insist that we need 60 votes for the bill, when all we need is 60 votes for CLOTURE, and it is customary for the party to vote with the leadership on procedural matters?
Finally, why it is that once again the Washington Post declares defeat for the public option when the House is certain to insist on it?
We aren't so easily fooled by this non-stop stream of anti-reform propaganda from the newspaper that was to host pay-for-access salons, the first of which was to be with the very health industry you shill for both in reporting and in editorializing.
WE DEMAND A PUBLIC OPTION AND WE WILL GET A PUBLIC OPTION DESPITE THE WASHINGTON POST.
SO TELL YOUR BUDDIES IN THE BOARD ROOMS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT WE'RE ON TO YOUR LITTLE GAME, MS. WEYMOUTH.
Posted by: trippin | September 30, 2009 10:07 AM
I agree with President Obama's intent at bipartisanship, but it was a mistake appointing a Republican to head this committee. Senator Baucus would not even let the single payor contingent sit at the table. He can't count either. 60% is not required to pass a law. 51 senators voting for the profit of all against the plunder of a few would do the job. If I were a Dem senator in the majority I'd welcome a filibuster. I'd love to see just what dimwits the GOP runs out to oppose changes that 70% of us want.
I wrote Senator Baucus and asked him to resign as chair or at least switch party affiliations.
Posted by: drcalm | September 30, 2009 11:07 AM
ANY bill that goes to Conference can become law and WITH the "public option" if they csan pass it after Conference. And that may be with 51 votes.
Win / Win?
Posted by: gary4books | September 30, 2009 11:21 AM
I too send Max Baucus an email. These politicians whom are getting this money from Insurance companies don't care about you or I - They are millionaires made by "special interest groups"
Do you honestly think they care whether or not we as individuals "average Joe/Jane)" thinks?
Even when we vote them out they are going across the street and get a consultant job from the very company that lined their "election chest".
SO THIS IS ALL THE MORE REASON WE VOTE OUT THOSE ON THE SENATE FINANCE THAT VOTED AGAINST PUBLIC OPTION!!
I have more faith in those Democratic constitiuents from those bluedog State's And a lot of them right now knows who they are!!!
In 2010
Arkansas, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, and the other two states!!!
LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD A "NO" TO THE PUBLIC OPTION IS A "NO" TO YOUR RE-ELECTION!
NOW JUST SCURRY ON ACROSS THE STREET TO K-STREET
IT IS TIME TO PUT A TIME-LIMIT ON CONGRESS!!!
Posted by: danders5000 | September 30, 2009 11:27 AM
lets give the libs time off in 2011, vote them out in 2010...
change we can all agree on...
Posted by: DwightCollins | September 30, 2009 11:57 AM
Polish your resumes liberals. The people have had enough of your nonsense.
Posted by: carlbatey | September 30, 2009 12:32 PM
Just a correction. I believe Backus is a Democrat. The reason he is opposing a public option is that he and 6 other Democratic senators are being paid off by the Insurance and Pahrmicutical industries in the form of Champain contributions. Money has been flowing to them as if the Missisippi river was rerouted to the Dakota's
Posted by: rlsrd | September 30, 2009 12:36 PM
So basically Baucus is telling all of us with Cerebral Palsy,epilepsy,autism,Parkinson,high blood pressure, diabetes,MS,MD,cancer-especially genetic,heart disease,people who've had heart attacks, stroke victims,people who were paralyzed people,who were once not paralyzed,HIV,lost limbs, or anyone with pre-existing conditions, screw you. I believe we need more Max Clelands, to make them see the error of their ways.
Posted by: bflaherty5 | September 30, 2009 1:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Wall Street's DEATH FOR PROFIT PANELS are safe for another day.
Senate. Schumer agreed, for now: "We don't have the 60 votes on the floor for the public option. I will be the first to admit that."
Does this mean that Baucus and the other red neck Blue Dogs will join the GOP in a filibuster of any bill with a public option? Only a filibuster threat can force the need for 60 votes.