Senate Finance Committee Dumps Public Option in Health Care

When is a majority not a majority? When it consists of Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. Despite holding 13 seats to the Republicans' 10, two Democratic amendments to the health care bill under consideration failed. Both would have provided a public option in US health insurance. A public option merely means a non-profit, government-funded insurer to compete with the for-profit industry that currently exists. One proposal from Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) lost 15 to 8, while a watered down version by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) floundered 13-12. Contrary to the pundits, this doesn't mean an end to the public option. However, it does show that the Democrats' big tent might need to be taken in a bit.

The five Democrats who voted against the Rockefeller Amendment were Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bill Nelson of Florida and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. On the Schumer amendment, Messrs. Nelson and Carper acted like Democrats and voted "aye," but the three stooges of the insurance industry (Messrs. Baucus and Conrad with Ms. Lincoln) managed to kill it.

The most interesting of these alleged Democrats was Mr. Baucus. Having accepted about $3 million in campaign donations from health insurers over the years, the last thing he was going to do was put a public option in the bill he crafted. However, the US Senate allows for amendments, and he had to find a reason (or pretext) for voting against such a change. He simply said that since there wouldn't be 60 votes to break a filibuster when the bill got to the floor of the Senate if there were a public option, he couldn't vote for one in committee. In short, since not enough guys and gals are going to vote for it, he won't either.

When the bill finally gets passed by the Senate, there probably won't be a public option. Yet that bill must be reconciled with the House bill (that will have such). A hefty number of House progressives have said that they won't back a bill that doesn't have a public option. In the end, a very watered down public something or other will find its way to Mr. Obama's desk for signature if only for the sake of not embarrassing everyone who isn't a Republican.

Yet, this divide shows just what happens when an American political party has too much electoral success. The function of loyal opposition doesn't reside in the minority party -- the GOP is largely irrelevant. Instead, the function of the opposition is taken on by large egos from small states (by population). If the Democrats are to be truly a progressive party, each of those who voted against both amendments must face primary challenges in their next re-election bid from truly progressive candidates.

As Harry Truman said, "in a race between a Republican and a Republican, the Republican will win." If these Democrats think they will keep their seats by voting like Republicans, they are sorely mistaken. After all, if the voters really buy that ideology, they would rather have the real thing.

© Copyright 2009 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home