No More Excuses: John Tester Brings 51st Senate Vote for Public Option

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have just received word that Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) would vote in favor of Senator Schumer's "level playing field" public option.

This pushes the Senate whip count to 51, even without Joe Biden casting a tie-breaking vote.

Since there are now finally 60 active, voting Democrats, it is possible to break any Republican filibuster. Hell, it actually only requires 51 votes to break a filibuster, if Senators were more honest about process. Further, if they didn't even want to both with filibusters, they could always just go with reconciliation, since Tester now gives them enough votes even if Robert Byrd (who is opposed to using reconciliation for health care) defects.

Senate Democrats have the votes. No more process excuses. Pass the public option.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/no_more..._option/#143203

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I think Puerto Rico should have 2 Senators.

[scandal 951]

I'm for health care reform.

Heck - I'd say that I'd even be for a Canadian style single payer model, if I thought there was any possible chance of passage.

But I just don't see what the hooplah is about this "public option". If the basic model is predicated on an open marketplace of competing private participants - and it is - no one is saying we won't have that - then provide regulation to make that competition effective. It's been done before in other industries. AT&T, Standard Oil were both trustbusted in their day and turned into competing entities. We never created a "public option" phone carrier or oil company. In this one case, I really wonder if the intent of the public option is not precisely what many Republican critics say it is - the camel's nose under the tent on the path to a single payer model. If it is - ok, that's cool with me. But let's not pretend otherwise.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm for health care reform.

Heck - I'd say that I'd even be for a Canadian style single payer model, if I thought there was any possible chance of passage.

But I just don't see what the hooplah is about this "public option". If the basic model is predicated on an open marketplace of competing private participants - and it is - no one is saying we won't have that - then provide regulation to make that competition effective. It's been done before in other industries. AT&T, Standard Oil were both trustbusted in their day and turned into competing entities. We never created a "public option" phone carrier or oil company. In this one case, I really wonder if the intent of the public option is not precisely what many Republican critics say it is - the camel's nose under the tent on the path to a single payer model. If it is - ok, that's cool with me. But let's not pretend otherwise.

And the public option has been done in the insurance market - right here in sunny Florida where the GOP legislature and GOP governor established a public option homeowners insurance as a result of the private market players failing to offer affordable coverage or any coverage at all. As a result of this public option, my private market insurance policy premiums have decreased better than 30% over the last couple of years. Private insurance has not gone bust in Florida, it hasn't been wiped out by the public option. The private insurance and the public option co-exist. A public option can and does work to improve competition and keep private market players honest. Let's give it a shot in health insurance and see what happens. I'm optimistic that the results would be very favorable for the American people.

[scandal 951]

I'm for health care reform.

Heck - I'd say that I'd even be for a Canadian style single payer model, if I thought there was any possible chance of passage.

But I just don't see what the hooplah is about this "public option". If the basic model is predicated on an open marketplace of competing private participants - and it is - no one is saying we won't have that - then provide regulation to make that competition effective. It's been done before in other industries. AT&T, Standard Oil were both trustbusted in their day and turned into competing entities. We never created a "public option" phone carrier or oil company. In this one case, I really wonder if the intent of the public option is not precisely what many Republican critics say it is - the camel's nose under the tent on the path to a single payer model. If it is - ok, that's cool with me. But let's not pretend otherwise.

And the public option has been done in the insurance market - right here in sunny Florida where the GOP legislature and GOP governor established a public option homeowners insurance as a result of the private market players failing to offer affordable coverage or any coverage at all. As a result of this public option, my private market insurance policy premiums have decreased better than 30% over the last couple of years. Private insurance has not gone bust in Florida, it hasn't been wiped out by the public option. The private insurance and the public option co-exist. A public option can and does work to improve competition and keep private market players honest. Let's give it a shot in health insurance and see what happens. I'm optimistic that the results would be very favorable for the American people.

As I said, I'm not dogmatically opposed to it, or in favor of it.

If you can get the votes for it, fine. But I'd just as soon get a bill passed without it, than see all this grandstanding by people like Sen. Rockefeller (and our own ignoble Sen. Burris of Illinois) saying they won't vote for a bill without it. Of all the things to make a principled stand on, I don't think this is the one.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm for health care reform.

Heck - I'd say that I'd even be for a Canadian style single payer model, if I thought there was any possible chance of passage.

But I just don't see what the hooplah is about this "public option". If the basic model is predicated on an open marketplace of competing private participants - and it is - no one is saying we won't have that - then provide regulation to make that competition effective. It's been done before in other industries. AT&T, Standard Oil were both trustbusted in their day and turned into competing entities. We never created a "public option" phone carrier or oil company. In this one case, I really wonder if the intent of the public option is not precisely what many Republican critics say it is - the camel's nose under the tent on the path to a single payer model. If it is - ok, that's cool with me. But let's not pretend otherwise.

And the public option has been done in the insurance market - right here in sunny Florida where the GOP legislature and GOP governor established a public option homeowners insurance as a result of the private market players failing to offer affordable coverage or any coverage at all. As a result of this public option, my private market insurance policy premiums have decreased better than 30% over the last couple of years. Private insurance has not gone bust in Florida, it hasn't been wiped out by the public option. The private insurance and the public option co-exist. A public option can and does work to improve competition and keep private market players honest. Let's give it a shot in health insurance and see what happens. I'm optimistic that the results would be very favorable for the American people.

As I said, I'm not dogmatically opposed to it, or in favor of it.

If you can get the votes for it, fine. But I'd just as soon get a bill passed without it, than see all this grandstanding by people like Sen. Rockefeller (and our own ignoble Sen. Burris of Illinois) saying they won't vote for a bill without it. Of all the things to make a principled stand on, I don't think this is the one.

It's less about principle and more about whether or not the Congress is capable of doing the people's business or whether they will continue to do the corporation's business. I would applaud those that oppose an insurance mandate w/o compensating controls to ensure the people aren't being overcharged for the coverage they have to purchase. Otherwise, we all may as well have our paychecks made payable to Aetna and Cigna and then see what they will let us have to actually live on.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog