Pages

Advertising

FDL Action Health Care Update: Tuesday (10/13/09)

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The big news in health care reform today, of course, was the Senate Finance Committee's passage of the Baucus bill by a vote of 14-9. Only one Republican - Olympia Snowe of Maine - voted yes, joining all 13 Democrats on the committee. With that, here's a wrap-up of the latest developments from FDL Action.

1. David Dayen writes that the "Finance Committee’s passage of a health reform bill marks the end of the committee process, but only the beginning of the longer journey to passage." Dayen lays out the possible paths moving forward, and cites the "hard but not impossible" chance " to influence the process at this point." Finally, Dayen reports that "nobody in the caucus has stated their willingness to join a filibuster, though Joe Lieberman flirted with that on Imus today." Good ol' Joe Lieberman, eh?

2. Jon Walker says that today was a "good day for Baucus" but a bad day for real reform. Walker points out that Olympia Snowe - who he calls "Empress Snowe" (referring to "how completely some in the Democratic leadership are prepared to defer to her") - "has long been opposed to some of the most important elements of reform," including "a real public option...a real employer mandate," and "giving the exchanges the power to negotiate with private insurance companies." Other than that, it's great to have her support! (snark)

3. Jane Hamsher argues that "if Reid won’t enforce caucus discipline, if as Majority Leader he now says it’s acceptable to use the '60 vote' threshold to water down the bill, he has to wear it." Jane vows that "[i]f the final bill that emerges from conference does not include a public option because of the threat of a filibuster, silent or otherwise, I pledge to do everything in my power to defeat Harry Reid — and his son — in 2010." Watch out, Harry, you definitely don't wanna mess with Jane! Ha.

4. David Dayen points to a "puzzling statement" by PricewaterhouseCoopers, apparently "distancing themselves from their own report." Essentially, PricewaterhouseCoopers is arguing that "AHIP made them do it and they didn’t look at any mitigating factors." And I hear the dog ate their homework, too. :)