So it may turn out that Harry Reid was the hero in the public option after all.

Much of the hoopla surrounding Reid's decision centers around a tense Thursday night meeting between President Obama and Senate health care principles--including Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)--at the White House. But according to sources briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations, things began boiling over earlier in the week, when a key question was, Who's going to take the blame when the public option doesn't make it in to the base health care bill?

{}

On the morning of the meeting, anonymous sources--and even some high profile senators--came forward to say that Reid was leaning very heavily toward backing the public option. And that's the news he and other senators brought to the White House that night.

"Reid actually asked Schumer to make the pitch," the first source said. When he did, "Obama was less than responsive and asked questions that suggested he preferred an option that could get the trigger and bipartisan support."

How the meeting ended remains unclear. But what we do know is that, early Friday morning--hours after the parties went their separate ways--Politico's Mike Allen reported that, according to a top administration official, Obama's preference was still for triggers, and he'd let the senators know that...read on

And mcjoan says that reconciliation may still be on the table after all.

This is the correct answer to the bleating of Joe Lieberman, and Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson. If you don't want to be a part of the most critical domestic policy reform in generations, we can always do it without you.

"Sure, it's always an option," Reid said after leaving his press conference Monday, when he announced that he'd be pushing forward with a public health insurance option with an opt-out provision that would give states the right not to participate....

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is in charge of corralling and counting votes, also said that reconciliation is still being considered. "The failsafe on this is reconciliation," Durbin said. "I hope we don't reach it because you can only do a limited amount of things on reconciliation."

Reid's comments were from Monday, before Joe put on his show, which could mean that Reid's now definitely put it on the table.

You know how much the Villagers hate this idea, so what that means to mean is it's awesome.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1784)

PLAYS: (2069)

From Democracy Now:

Democrats say the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 has granted the insurance industry a captive market with no curbs on price fixing and other anti-competitive practices. Last week the Justice Department’s top antitrust regulator, Christine Varney, voiced support for a repeal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are also backing a repeal, and New York Senator Charles Schumer has called for including it as part of the healthcare reform bill. The House Judiciary Committee plans to vote on the issue on Wednesday.

This would be a welcome step in the right direction if it passes.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1159)

PLAYS: (1680)

Chuck Schumer talks to Rachel's fill in Alison Stewart about what the next steps are as negotiations continue on what's in the final version of the health care bill. As Schumer explains, what happens next is in Harry Reid's hands.

Stewart: You called the bill you voted on today “Not ideal but a good bill”. Despite your best efforts the public option was not part of it. Why not?

Schumer: Well, we didn’t have the votes obviously but we are making good progress once again. We never thought we’d win in the Finance Committee but thirty Democrats have signed a letter saying the public option must be in the combined bill. There are many others who are supportive. The four of us in the leadership didn’t sign the letter because they were to the leadership. We’re for it as well and I am very optimistic that we’re going go get a strong public option.

The House is standing firm on public option and I think all of those when they saw the vote in the Finance Committee who thought “Oh it’s over” hadn’t really read the situation correctly.

Stewart: Well, how do you get it done? How does it end up in the final bill?

Schumer: Well, first Leader Reid has the option of putting it in the final bill. If he puts it in the final bill, in the combined bill then you would need sixty votes to remove it and there clearly are not sixty votes against the public option. If… and so we’re urging him to do that and he’s seriously considering it.

Once it passes the Senate if that were to happen, it’s in the House Bill, it’s in the Senate bill and it would have to be in the final product. So it’s very important to see if a public option is in the bill that Leader Reid puts together. He hasn’t yet made up his mind, but many of us who believe in the public option are urging him to do so and so far we’re getting, we’re getting heard.

Just in time for the debate over the merits of a state-by-state "opt out" of a national public health insurance option, the Commonwealth Fund has released its 2009 state health care scorecard. As in 2007, the data reveals the critical condition of red state health care. All of which could present Republican governors and legislatures with a dilemma: will they refuse to offer lower cost insurance coverage for their residents by rejecting a system funded in part by blue state taxpayers?

Given the contentious ongoing debate in the Senate, crystal ball-gazing for any public option, whether national, opt-in or opt-out is premature. But the Commonwealth Fund's analysis of health care indicators shows the stakes for its red state opponents. While nine of the top 10 performing states voted for Barack Obama in 2008, four of the bottom five (including Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Louisiana) and 14 of the last 20 backed John McCain. (That at least is an improvement from the 2007 data, in which all 10 cellar dwellers had voted for George W. Bush three years earlier.)

Continue reading »

From The Daily Show:

The Democratic supermajority fails to pass health care reform, but succeeds in funding abstinence-only education.

I just turned on CSPAN 3 and Chuck Schumer is speaking and wondering why Republicans are soo afraid of a public option and is talking about his amendment. He said he actually liked Sen. Rockefeller's amendment better, but he's pushing his amendment. He should be scolding members of his own party for voting against the public option.

Here are the five ConservaDems who voted against the public option earlier:

Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Carper and Nelson.

Another vote is due shortly. We will not stay silent. The House of Lords are more interested in their own power than helping the American people.
It looks like Ben Nelson is voting for Schumer's amendment.

UPDATE:

The more conservative Chuck Schumer public option amendment was just voted down 13-10.
Two votes flipped, Nelson and Carper, but Baucus, Lincoln and Conrad voted against it. Good doggies.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1360)

PLAYS: (1798)

We know that Chuck isn't a progressive and more of a DLC type, but he made it pretty clear on Meet The Press that the public option will be in the final bill and that surprised me. He actually said it's essential to get the costs down. We'll see.

Meet The Press:

SEN. SCHUMER: If you don't like, you have an option of the public option, which will help bring costs down. And so it is indeed essential to getting the costs down, which is our number one problem.

MR. GREGORY: You're not backing away from it, but there is concern within the Democratic Party that President Obama is backing away. Here was the headline in the New York Post this week that spoke for a lot of liberals, actually, both publicly and privately: "Sellout! Liberals howl as Bam `caves' on the health plan." This is what the reference was to, the president's weekly radio address back in July during which he said this.(

Videotape, July 18, 2009)PRES. OBAMA: That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans--including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest--and choose what's best for your family.(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: That was July. But just a week ago the president said this.

Videotape, August 15, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA: All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: You say it's essential, Senator Schumer; the president saying now it's just a sliver. He's backed away, hasn't he?

SEN. SCHUMER: I don't think he's backed away at all. I've talked to the president personally about this in the last few weeks. He believes strongly in the public option. Obviously he is working hard to get a bipartisan bill, because that would be a better bill. But I believe that at the end of the day we will have a public option. And frankly, I believe we could get a public option that could be passed with the 60 Democratic votes we had. A level playing field public option, where the public option competes on a level playing field with the insurance companies, was backed in the House by both Blue Dog Democrats and more liberal Democrats. And I think that's the direction we're going to end up in.

I know there's a lot of horse trading going on between the White House, Congress, Rahm and every other pol that can get their two cents in during the August recess, but I was surprised to hear Schumer be as supportive on the public option as he was with Gregory. Now, I'm not saying that his words are gospel, but it still was interesting that he didn't back off the public option.

UPDATE: Schumer also threatened the GOP with reconciliation on MTP and then said it again on The Scar.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said bipartisanship is still the goal, but preparations are underway in the Senate to pass ...

... a health care bill without any Republican support.

"We're going to [make] every effort to get a bipartisan bill, but if not we're making preparations for how to get this done without it," Schumer said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Schumer also predicted that a final bill will include some type of a "a level playing field" public option.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (965)

PLAYS: (1120)

Chuck Schumer on Face the Nation appeared to issue some of the strongest language yet on whether there will be a public option in the final version of the health care bill, but he gave himself some wiggle room. Just what does "some form of it" mean? Either there is a public option, or there isn't.

At least Schumer spoke out very well about what a bad idea waiting for things to get even worse and using a "trigger" before offering a public option would be. Everyone in America deserves access to affordable health care coverage now, not after the insurance companies have had a couple more years to rake us over the coals and line their CEO's pockets.

John Amato:
Here's what Chuck said that was stronger and somewhat more hopeful than normal.

Shumer: There will be a public option in the final bill, some form of it. And hopefully Chuck Grassley and I and others can come to an agreement on how that should work. We want it to be a fair, level playing field, but you need something the big boys honest. And the only thing that really is out there is a public option.

We don’t trust the private insurance companies left to their own devices and neither do the American people. Seventy percent of the American people support a public option.

The recent polling telling Congress that America wants the government to step into health care reform and offer a public plan cannot be minimized. We are going to hold you to it. We'll be running our Blue America ads shortly. I'll be writing a post to let you know by tomorrow.
Christy Hardin Smith writes: Health Care: We’re Gonna Hold You To That Guarantee, Sen. Schumer

We're going to hold you to that guarantee, Chuck. No idea when you became the Great and Powerful Oz on health care on the Hill.

But now that you've made this public guarantee? We expect you and everyone else in the House and Senate to deliver on it. And we'll be watching you closely to be certain that you do.

Yes We Will! That's my new slogan and I hope Congress is listening.

Transcript via CBS:

SCHUMER: Well, we’re making every effort to reach common ground. But let me just say this. We need somebody to keep the public -- the private insurance companies honest. They are terribly concentrated. In Chuck Grassley’s own state, 71 percent by one company.

In 94 percent of the markets, according to the Justice Department, health insurance is highly concentrated. So without a public option, you’re going to have no competition. And the public is going to be forced -- you know, they don’t like the insurance companies simply raising prices and raising prices and cutting back on coverage and cutting back on coverage.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (864)

PLAYS: (2954)

One of the common wingnut accusations about Democratic hypocrisy because they opposed Mike (who was then suddenly called Miguel) Estrada is that Democrats refused to give give him a fair hearing. On This Week today, Chuck Schumer responds:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Schumer, how do you respond to this charge of hypocrisy and double standards? You led the charge against Miguel Estrada when he was trying to -- when he was nominated for the appeals court. There were internal memos among Democrats, citing as one possible reason the fact that he would be an Hispanic elevated to the appeals court. Are you using a different standard for Judge Sotomayor than you used for Mr. Estrada?

SCHUMER: Absolutely not, and let me explain why. First, Estrada was never a judge, so we had no way to judge what his record would be in the best way to judge it, cases that we had ruled on. And so when we asked him questions, he said absolutely nothing. He said, I cannot answer this question, I cannot answer that question. In fact, Judge Sotomayor has answered more questions on hearings already, because of her two confirmation hearings, than Estrada said. So we had totally nothing to do on with Estrada.

What we said about Miguel Estrada is, if he talked a little bit about his judicial philosophy, we could give him a fair hearing. He absolutely refused. He had no record as a judge. The two standards are like night and day.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (942)

PLAYS: (1448)

Lou Dobbs calls out Chuck Schumer for his waffling on whether Americans would accept torture being used in the phony ticking time bomb scenario. He then asks his audience to participate in an on line poll and asks whether they would "personally employ torture to save American lives and prevent an attack on this country?" And surprise, surprise...the overwhelming answer is...YES! Looks like all that fear mongering is paying off well for you. What's next Lou? You going to ask them if they'd like to shoot Mexicans to put an end to illegal immigration?

Go after Schumer or anyone else for their double talk on this issue, but asking Americans if they would participate in torture? Lou I hate to break it to you, but 24 is a television show. The ticking time bomb scenario doesn't happen in real life. And torture is illegal. You should not be pushing it as something acceptable in our society.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) laid down the law to the GOP Governors who have been playing politics with the economic stimulus package. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal of Louisiana gets the full treatment. Sen. Schumer released his letter entitled Schumer to GOP governors: Stimulus isn't a la carte menu to to the White House this morning arguing that the law doesn't allow them to pick and choose. Full letter below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (42)

PLAY (91)

A big topic on the liberal blogs has been that Republicans who took a hatchet to the stimulus bill didn't even vote for it.

I explained yesterday how the people who crafted the crappy Senate compromise bill were, to a significant degree, Republicans. Republicans who won't even vote for the bill. But I forgot to credit the guy who really put the stupid in this bill: Johnny Isakson.

On ABC's THIS WEEK, Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters make a great point that many in the press have missed or refuse to talk about, but which bloggers have not.

SCHUMER: So let me just say this.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: We had a lot of people who said, "Take this out, take
that out."

WATERS: That's right.

SCHUMER: Most of those things were taken out, and they still
voted against the bill.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ... so much is missing, and that's the reality.

WATERS: We took the amendments from those three Republicans who
were willing to step up to the bat.

KING: In the House, no one was allowed to take -- no Republican
was allowed to take part in the process.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Not one Republican was allowed to take part in the process
in the House.

WATERS: That's -- that is not -- that is not the truth.

KING: It is the truth.

WATERS: As a matter of fact, we should focus on, when you had
the opportunity to participate, why not do what those three moderate
Republicans did? Step up to the plate; offer your amendments. You
know, we took all of their amendments.

Do you know we reduced the neighborhood stabilization program by
a couple of billion dollars? We reduced Head Start, Early Start,
school construction. We took the amendments. And so all those who...

KING: The fact is...

SCHUMER: And one other thing...

KING: ... not one Republican was allowed at the table in the
House of Representatives when the bill was...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I'm talking about the House.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: Let's just look at the Senate. The two biggest
amendment that we accepted were Republican amendments, $70 billion --
you disagreed with it -- Senator Grassley, AMT, $38 billion, housing
relief, Senator Isakson. They still voted against the bill.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Senator Graham back into this now.

SCHUMER: We don't know what more to do in terms of
bipartisanship.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: Well, how about the Senate?

GRAHAM: If I may say, if this is going to be bipartisanship, the
country's screwed. I know bipartisanship when I see it. I've
participated in it. I've gone back home and gotten primary opponents
because I wanted to be bipartisanship.

If Republican Senators have an amendment added to a bill and then vote against the bill, that amendment should be pulled. Why should a conservative effort to water down legislation get passed and then not get the backing of the author? Goober Graham as usual performs his hyperventilating act while Democratic politicians still do a pretty poor job of explaining their positions. And not a single economist showed up on THIS WEEK...

DOWNLOAD (9)

PLAY (63)

Sen. Charles Schumer told Fox's Chris Wallace that he could support limited prosecution for Bush officials that participated in torture or broke other laws.

WALLACE: Let's turn, if we can, to foreign policy. We were talking with John McCain about this question about investigating what went on the last eight years. Speaker Pelosi told me last week that Congress doesn't have the right to ignore what went on the last eight years, if there was law breaking. As we said, the Attorney General designate is leaving that possibility open. You heard John McCain just say that's the worst we could do, try to look back at the past eight years and try to second-guess what a bunch of people in the intelligence field did. What's your feeling on this issue?

SCHUMER: My feeling is generally that of president Obama -- that we should be looking forward, not backward. How do we correct the mistakes of the past and how do we keep ourselves secure and preserve vital liberty. If there are egregious cases, I don't think you can say, blanket, no prosecutions. If there are egregious cases, yes, you have to look at them. But overall, the tone of Barack Obama and Attorney General Holder -- I've spoken to him privately on this as well as what he said at the hearing -- is not to spend too much of our time, a lot of our time looking backward and pointing fingers. It's rather going forward and making the policy better in the future.

  OK... I know asking for only $150 billion is kind of ridiculous but why should Congress commit a whopping $700 billion to the Treasury without knowing how that money will be spent? Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Secretary Paulson at today's hearing how he arrived at the $700 figure and asked for an explanation as to why Congress shouldn't give them only a fraction of that, with the rest contingent upon the situation we find ourselves in in January. Seems reasonable enough, no?

Download | play   Download | play  

"One of you mentioned that you will use about $50 billion dollars a month. If that's the case, and you're certainly not going to use all $700 billion immediately, and as you can see there are a lot of questions about whether this will work, we understand you've done your best and you think this will work best, but it's clear we're in uncharted waters. But what about doing this in tranches? Why couldn't you ask us for $150 billion, and on January 15th or January 20th we would come back, we would assess how this worked and grant some more money if it's really working?"

The proposed bailout is undoubtedly an intensely complex matter that's way above my pay grade, but giving Paulson a blank check for a minimum of 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars (and quite likely more) just doesn't make sense. It seems to me that the Bush administration is trying to rip off the taxpayers one last time, hoping this market "shock" can provide them enough cover to actually make it happen. Although it's far from perfect, Schumer's idea of investing a smaller amount (if any) to get us to January -- when a new President and a new Congress take office -- seems much more reasonable.