Senator Conrad Today On CNN: Rejects reconciliation, claims votes lacking to pass public option

[Better Believe It]

Conrad: Votes lacking to pass public-option healthcare
By Molly K. Hooper
The Hill
June 14, 2009

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on Sunday that Democrats won’t have enough votes to pass a White House-endorsed healthcare reform package that includes a government-run option.

President Obama is not likely to garner the support needed by his former Senate colleagues to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system if he insists on including a public option, the Budget Committee’s top Democrat said on CNN’s “State of the Union."

“In a 60-vote environment, you’ve got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together, and that, I don’t believe, is possible with a pure public option. I don’t think the votes are there,” Conrad said on the morning talk show.

But the adminstration remains insistent that healthcare reform include a government component in order to create more competition and lower costs for medical treatment.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/conrad-votes-lacking-to-pass-public-option-healthcare-2009-06-14.html


----------------------------------------

CNN Transcript Excerpt
June 14, 2009

CONRAD:

The problem is votes, you know? At the end of the day, nothing advances unless you get 60 votes in the United States Senate. Now, I know there are some who are saying, we can do this through reconciliation, which is a special fast-track process...

KING: Right.

CONRAD: ... that only requires 51 votes.

But I think, on exploration, people will find that really does not work, for a lot of arcane reasons we don't need to go into. So, I think you are in a 60-vote environment. And that means you have got to attract some Republicans, as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together.

And that, I don't believe, is possible with the pure public option. I don't think the votes are there.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/14/sotu.01.html

----------------------------------

Has Kent Conrad Solved the Public Plan Problem?
An Interview.
Ezra Klein
Washington Post
June 11, 2009

KLEIN: How do you respond to someone who says, this is a terrific idea. More competition is always welcome. But why instead of a public option? Why not do it alongside and let a thousand coverage models bloom?

CONRAD: Votes. The problem is this. If you're in a 60 vote environment in the Senate, and I believe we are, because I believe reconciliation simply won't work, if you begin tallying up the votes, I believe that virtually all Republicans are against the public option and some democrats are. So how do you get to 60?

KLEIN: How many Democrats would you estimate are against a public option?

CONRAD: I don't know for certain, but I think at least three, and maybe more.

KLEIN: And why do you think that reconciliation won't work for health reform.

CONRAD: Reconciliation was never designed to write substantive legislation. It was designed solely for deficit reduction. The whole idea was you would change numbers, not policy. You would change numbers on the revenue side of the equation and the spending side of the equation.

And so, the way it works, under current rules, if your in reconciliation, you have to be deficit neutral over five years. Under the budget resolution, health care can be deficit neutral under 10 years. That's a big difference.

Two, under reconciliation, you're subjected to the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule says that anything that doesn't cost money or save money, or that only costs money or saves money in a way that's incidental to the policy, are subject to strike. The result, for instance, is that all the insurance market provisions are subject to strike. All the wellness and prevention provisions are subject to strike. The Senate parliamentarian said to us that if you try to write substantive health reform in reconciliation, you'll end up with Swiss cheese.

Read the complete interview at:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/has...

[DJ13]

1. 60 is the new 51

Every time one of these Congress critters talks about legislation they dont want passed its always 60 votes needed.

What a farce.

[Better Believe It]

26. Only 51 votes are needed to pass legislation under the Constitution

Period.

[PassingFair]

2. Arcane reasons be damned.

:eyes:

All we NEED is 51

[depakid]

3. Provided that we're willing to DUMP the corrupt DINO's

and withhold support for their future campaigns as well as for legislation that they want passed.

[PassingFair]

4. Sign me up for that!

:evilgrin:

[jaxx]

5. Yep that's the ticket.

Obstuction doesn't cut it for reelection.

[avaistheone1]

24. Absolutely a corrupt Democrat is no better than a corupt Republican.

When the Repubicans and the Democrats are not taking care of the people's business. They are both guilty of corruption.

[boppers]

14. Let them filibuster.

I totally want to see them go on record DENYING people a possible option for public health care.

The campaign ads practically create themselves:
"Senator Blah didn't think you should have options where to buy your healthcare. Isn't it time for a change? Senator Foo doesn't believe that you should be forced to buy your healthcare from corporations that are more concerned about their profits than your health.

Vote for your health, Vote Foo."

[PassingFair]

21. Senator Blah cares more about protecting insurance companies than protecting your family's health...

Yep.

I'd LOVE to see them EXPLAIN
why it is more important to
protect insurance company profits
than it it to protect their
constituents from bankruptcy.

[JDPriestly]

6. If Conrad votes for the public option, that's one less vote against it.

Clearly, the majority of Democrats and the leader -- Obama -- want a public option. How about doing what people want just once.

[flpoljunkie]

7. It's all about the money they receive from health care and insurance to run their damn campaigns.

As Dick Durbin said of the banks, "Frank they own the place.' Well, Dick, it's not just the banks who own the place, it's the health care industry, as well.

[kenny blankenship]

8. I will donate to anyone running against this corrupt shitbag

ANYBODY AT ALL.

[Better Believe It]

9. That "anybody" just might accept even more corporate funding!

Be careful about supporting "anybody but" .....

And if he losses in a primary or general election he'll actually win from a personal standpoint. How's that? Serving in Congress is frequently a huge stepping stone to very lucrative corporate positions or serving as their lobbyist!

[kenny blankenship]

11. Oh I expect that they probably would. That's why I emphasize ANYBODY

they don't have to be good. They can even be very bad.

Bottomline, until assholes like Conrad feel the heat from us they are going to keep selling us out. You only have their respect when they fear to cross you. Conrad apparently has no fear of crossing his party or his sandbagging his President. Why would he?

I'm wondering where are the zealous supporters of the President right now, the ones that go into attack mode at the slightest criticism of an Obama policy. I wonder. Healthcare, after all, is THE policy initiative issue of Barack Obama's Presidency. And here's this so called Democrat, Conrad, trying every way he can to CUT OUT THE HEART of the President's policy. Yet only 7 people have bothered to even comment.

Clearly Republicans aren't the problem anymore although Conrad tries to deflect blame on them for his sabotage of substantive healthcare reform. It's the 5th column Democrats that are the problem. Conrad can take his big Pay Day from his corporate masters when he's done - doubtless he's worked hard for it. The educational value of turning him out of the Senate is not meant as a lesson for him, but for the others who can't cash in yet.

[karynnj]

10. How did Bush pass the Bush tax cuts under reconciliation - which he did -

if conrad is right. There is no way that huge tax cut was anything near budget neutral - no matter how many years.

[Thrill]

12. You never heard this 60 votes shit from Republicans when they were in the majority

This is bullshit, Grow some balls you pricks

[Better Believe It]

18. Repubs only needed 51 votes, Democrats agreed. Repubs now say Dems need 60 votes. Dems agree

Some Democrats believe the 60 vote myth gives them cover and a plausible excuse for inaction and/or capitulation to Republicans.

Only 50 votes (with a tie breaker cast by the Vice-President) are required to pass legislation under the Constitution.

Senate rules can be changed at any time by Democrats by simply using the so-called "nuclear option" threatened by the Republican Senate majority in 2005 so that contrary to Senate rules established at the beginning of this Senate session, a Republican filibuster can be immediately stopped.

Or Senate Democrats can require Republican Senators to filibuster the old fashioned way by taking and holding the Senate floor in a real, not phantom filibuster.

If the Republicans really want to filibuster against health care reform designed to bring down costs and provide medical care for all, let them! Let the general public see them as obstructionists, further isolating them from the public.

All filibusters end.

[WonderGrunion]

13. Or Obama could put it forward anyway...

And see how many senators dare to go on record opposing it.

[jonestonesusa]

15. I think that's a good strategy given that health care's at the center of Obama's agenda.

How many Democrats will publicly oppose it? It would be a gambit to bring the policy to a vote in front of all, and maybe Obama is trying to keep relationships good with Dems of all stripes. But there comes a point when you have to stop politicking and start legislating. We've reached that point with health care, that's for sure! This may be one chance in a thousand to get something passed - use every strategy to get it done in 09!

[DrToast]

25. Dems know that not passing a health care plan will make them vulnerable

I just don't buy there's enough Dem Senators that will vote against a health care bill with a public plan.

[DrToast]

23. Exactly! I sure haven't heard that many people oppose the public plan

Right now only Landrieu and Lieberman are the ones on the record as being against it.

[paulk]

16. "in a 60 vote environment..."

I think, in the next few weeks, we are going to see what Obama is made of...

[MasonJar]

17. And you are obviously one of the reasons, Conrad. You need to be replaced.

The great majority of the American people want public financed healthcare and you are supposed to represent us...not your corporate donors. If they are all you care about, go work for them. We deserve have someone who listens to us. Enough is enough. Health insurance companies are dispensible and so are you.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Damn the fucking Senate.

[grillo7]

20. I've had it!!!!!

What is it with these SPINELESS representatives of ours? First we were told single payer was out of the question, now a public option isn't possible? What the hell?!?! So the ONLY option, then, is basically a republican based market plan? I'm infuriated by this! We control the house, senate, and executive, but we're STILL caving in to every republican whim on almost everything substantive.

[sisters6]

22. It is tinkering around the edges-mostly fluff, Yet they will call it the biggest REFORM

in health care ever.

[BeyondGeography]

27. "The Senate parliamentarian said to us ..."