Update: Schmuck Schumer’s public option also fails to pass Finance Committee. Just how many of these public options are there? I wonder if Olympia Snowe will commit political suicide now by bringing up the trigger amendment?

From the New York Times Senator John D. Rockefeller IV’s public option fails in Finance Committee:

WASHINGTON — After a half-day of animated debate, the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected efforts by liberal Democrats to add a government-run health insurance plan to major health care legislation, dealing the first official setback to an idea that many Democrats, including President Obama, say they support.

All of the other versions of the health care legislation advancing in Congress — a bill approved by the Senate health committee and a trio of bills in the House — include some version of the government-run plan, or public option.

But the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, long ago removed it from his proposal because of stiff opposition from Republicans who call the public plan a step toward “socialized medicine.”

The committee on Tuesday afternoon voted, 15 to 8, to reject an amendment proposed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, to add a public option called the Community Choice Health Plan, an outcome that underscored the lack of support for a government plan among many Democrats.

Mr. Baucus voted no, as did Senators Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, , and Bill Nelson of Florida, joining all 10 Republicans in opposition.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who voted in favor of the proposal, said supporters of the public option would keep on fighting. He has offered a separate amendment to establish such an option.

“We are going to keep at this and at this and at this until we succeed, because we believe in it so strongly,” he said.

Advocates of a public plan say it would provide crucial competition for private insurers and that the larger goals of the legislation, to extend coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans and to slow the steep rise in health care costs, cannot be achieved without it.

The debate came as the Finance Committee resumed debate over the health care bill after a three-day weekend because of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement.

After the vote on Mr. Rockefeller’s proposal, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, was scheduled to put forward his own public option amendment and it, too, was expected to be defeated.

In the emotionally charged debate, Mr. Rockefeller railed against the practices of private insurers, who he suggested were largely preying on a defenseless American public. “They’re getting away with terrible things,” he said.

But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, stepped in to voice his party’s fierce opposition to the idea of government-run insurance.

“A government run plan will ultimately force private insurers out of business,” Mr. Grassley said, adding that supporters of the public option were trying to open a back door toward a fully government-run, or single-payer, health system like those in Canada or England.

“Public option is a step toward a completely government run plan that they are hoping for,” Mr. Grassley said.

And he rejected assertions by Democrats, including Mr. Rockefeller, that the public plan would compete fairly because it would have to follow the same rules as private insurers.

“The federal government will not only be running the plan, it will also be running the market in which it competes with the private plans and that doesn’t sound like a level playing field to me,” Mr. Grassley said.

Democrats quickly rose up to answer the charges, including Mr. Schumer, who challenged Mr. Grassley to spell out his views on Medicare, the government insurance plan for Americans over age 65 and for the disabled.

“I just want to know what you think of Medicare, which is a much more government-run program,” Mr. Schumer said.

“I think that Medicare is part of the social fabric of America just like Social Security is,” Mr. Grassley said. “To say that I support it is not to say that it’s the best system that it could be.”

“But it is a government-run plan,” Mr. Schumer shot back.

Mr. Grassley, a veteran Senate debater, insisted that Medicare did not pose a threat to the private insurance industry. “It’s not easy to undo a Medicare plan without also hurting a lot of private initiatives that are coupled with it,” he said.

Mr. Schumer pounced. “You are supportive of Medicare,” he said. “I just don’t understand the difference. That’s a government-run plan and the main knock you have made on Senator Rockefeller’s amendment, and I am sure on mine, is that it’s government-run.”

The efforts by Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Schumer to add a public plan to the bill were really just a dress rehearsal for a fuller battle that will play out on the Senate floor in the weeks ahead.

Senate Democratic leaders, however, do not believe there will be sufficient support to add the public option to the bill.

Aides to the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, say that he will not include a provision for the public option when he combines the measures coming out of the finance and health committees.

Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Schumer and other supporters of a government-run plan will bring floor amendments trying once again to add it to the legislation.

And even when the debate over the public option is taken up on the Senate floor, most likely it will not be finished.

There is wider support for a government-run insurance plan in the House, where the Democratic caucus is more liberal. And if the House bill includes a public option, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated, the issue will ultimately be decided in a conference proceedings to reconcile the Senate and House bills.

As an alternative, Mr. Baucus included in his bill a proposal to create private, nonprofit health insurance cooperatives to compete with private insurers.

The Congressional Budget Office has questioned whether the cooperatives would really have much effect. And there are Democrats and Republicans on the Finance Committee who have proposed amendments that would strip the cooperative provisions.

The main architect of that proposal, Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said during the committee debate that it would provide “strong not for profit competition to the private insurers.” But he warned that hospitals in his home state would be devastated by Mr. Rockefeller’s proposal, which would initially tie the public plan’s payment rates to the rates paid by Medicare.

Many hospitals, doctors and other health care providers say Medicare rates are too low.

Mr. Conrad urged his colleagues to consider his alternative,. “We have gotten locked in a very sterile debate ,” he said.

More from The Hill: Rockefeller’s public option fails in Senate Finance Committee

Now it’s time to kill co-operatives which are nothing more than a Trojan Horse for a public option.

In other news and opinion:

How to Lose Friends and Annoy Your Enemies

Hear Our Cry, Obama?. Check out the 1st comment.

Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

Great advice on the left’s race-card playing

Is Franken ACORN’s Man In The Senate?

Rockefeller, Schumer push public-option amendment in Senate

From the Social Security Institute:

Mr. President, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the authoritative source of legislative interpretation for all things tax related coming out of the Congress says in unambiguous terms that the individual health-insurance mandate in the Finance Committee bill will become part of the Internal Revenue Code. Further, the JCT chief of staff confirms that refusal to pay the associated excise tax ($1,900 per family) if one declines to purchase health insurance could lead to jail time and a $25,000 fine for tax evasion.

You say the individual health-insurance levy such as that contained in the Senate Finance Committee bill cannot be construed as a “tax.” The Finance Committee Chairman, however, calls it a tax, and the Joint Committee on Taxation says it will be part of the tax code and refusal to pay it will be prosecuted as tax evasion.

I’m not calling you a liar. I just don’t think you know what you are talking about. So why don’t you just shut up and stop confusing the American people who know a tax when they see one?

Mr. President – you’ve been served. And lets not forget that most important rule of all: reading is fundamental. So how about practicing some of those fundamental skills, or are you too busy basking in the glory of children singing love songs to you?

In other news and opinion:

How to Lose Friends and Annoy Your Enemies

Hear Our Cry, Obama?. Check out the 1st comment.

Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

Great advice on the left’s race-card playing

Is Franken ACORN’s Man In The Senate?

Rockefeller, Schumer push public-option amendment in Senate

Howard Dean, DFA, Launch Campaign Encouraging 51-Vote Health Care Bill. That headline should scare you.

If we ignore the following strategy to stop the 51-vote option to pass healthcare (known as reconciliation), we do so at our country’s peril. It would be a real tragedy if all the battles we have won – the town halls, the march on DC – all the efforts that went into stopping ObamaCare, were for naught. We can still lose the war. This is one way to help guarantee this will not happen, but it will require a little work on the part of the reader to follow closely the arguments below. They are not difficult and can be summarized neatly as follows:

• Reconciliation is a way to require only 50 votes to pass legislation, with the Vice President breaking the tie. It does have downsides, but they can be overcome with future legislation. It only requires patience.
• Think of the below as pressuring Republicans to force the Democrats into a defensive public relations posture – not as a parliamentary maneuver.
• Do NOT allow Republicans to avoid this strategy by claiming it makes them look obstructionist. They have the outline of a bill.
• Keep in mind that reconciliation is possible and no matter what the downsides appear to be, they can be overcome in the future. Anyone who tells you otherwise is politically naive.
• Only the grassroots has the power to make this happen. The same people that marched on DC, went to town halls, and stood up for this country have the power to realize this strategy
• Republicans are not necessarily your friends on this. Lump them together with the Democrats. The only difference is how the strategy is used to pressure each party.

Keep the following in mind as you continue reading: FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON. You will see this again below.

For completeness, here is a description of Senator Demint’s amendments:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Often, I will hear the tired old argument that these amendments are a non-issue. The false assumptions are usually presented by a detractor mired in parliamentary maneuvering and unaware of the public relations side of the strategy to use the above amendments to stop reconciliation, which would only require 50 votes to pass healthcare reform. The argument goes something like this:

The instruction was not in the Budget Conference Report but it passed anyway. The other amendment appears to rely on a CBO finding that hasn’t happened yet on a bill that hasn’t had a floor vote yet.

Another argument I often hear, and one I myself am guilty of propagating, is that reconciliation would amount to a Swiss cheese approach to legislation, with only some pieces of legislation meeting the criterion for consideration under this maneuver. I won’t go into the details here as to why, there are plenty of articles and posts written on the subject. The author of such an argument often goes on to say that, because of this shortcoming, reconciliation is not to be feared. This is patently false and politically naive. Allow any scaffolding, foundation, or skeleton of ObamaCare to pass via reconciliation and I will bet you the farm that later down the line that Swiss cheese morphs into a full-block of all you eat ObamaCare cheese. Liberals are patient – very patient. Give them the scaffolding and foundation and they will legislate full-blown ObamaCare into existence. It will only be a matter of time. So enough of this “do not fear reconciliation” nonsense. Take it off the table.

Once again it is up to the grassroots to get involved and put serious pressure on the Senate concerning these amendments and make known our expectation that these amendments be adhered to because of the promise by unanimous vote in one case and a vote of 79-14 in the second. If we shame enough Democrats the possibility increases that votes will be lacking in the Senate even for Reconciliation. It is up to the us to pressure Republicans to make this an issue. Republicans, as we all know too well, are prone to rolling over and need prodding on a regular basis. To borrow a Texas phrase, it’s like herding cattle.

The amendments passed. Therefore, if the Senators wish to be seen as men and women of character, they should follow the rules they set out for themselves. No more rules for thee (you and me) but not for me (the elitist politicians). No more spineless non-responses and no more pompous attitudes. If the 9/12 DC march taught Republicans and Democrats anything, it is the grassroots is real, we are big, and we will vote.

Here is an outline of the facts. Here is an outline of how to use the reality that these amendments were voted on in the past with the purpose of stopping reconciliation and preserving minority rights in the Senate to stop Democrats from forcing tremendous changes to 1/6 of our economy.

• The Senate insiders have tried all along to dismiss the DeMint provisions on technical grounds by ignoring the facts that got us to the current situation. The grassroots must be ruthless and relentless in pushing the Republicans to do the right thing and make this an issue.
• It is all about constructing the right narrative.
• If we start listening to excuses from insiders, our movement will be hijacked by the establishment (beltway insiders, including politicians of both parties), which is exactly what they will try to do.
• The establishment’s attempt to hijack the movement is less about elbowing for who gets credit than about herding us so we don’t rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for them. What they fail to realize is they are the cattle and we are the cowboys. We herd them, not the other way around.
• First, by any stretch of the imagination any bill currently under consideration by the Senate satisfies the conditions set down in the original DeMint Amendment that passed by unanimous consent. I would love to debate anyone arguing otherwise.
• We can argue all day whether or not CBO would rule otherwise but that gives up the fight before it even begins. The CBO doesn’t have to rule on anything since the provision has been stripped. I suspect any detractors of this strategy of talking to a Republican insider or getting their information from one second or third hand.
• Of course CBO hasn’t yet ruled whether or not a bill satisfies the DeMint conditions, because it is not law yet. But the pertinent point is that the DeMint Amendment is not law precisely because it was dropped unceremoniously in conference contrary to the will of the Senate as evidenced by a huge bipartisan majority (79 votes). How did that happen? The Senate Budget Committee Chairman who voted for the measure twice on the floor of the Senate and was under instructions from his Senate colleagues to insist on the Senate provision in conference turned his head.
• The establishment would love to make this about a parliamentarian maneuver rather than what it really is – a public relations disaster – one that would force any Senator to explain to their constituents why they voted on an amendment to protect minority rights and stop reconciliation and then subsequently chose to ignore that very vote. This is a favorite technique used to keep strategy control firmly within the hands of the insiders.
• That is why we have to construct the narrative and control it from the outside rather than allowing the insiders to set the terms of the debate.
• This is a very simple story. The Senate made a rule and then broke other rules in the dead of night to throw it in the garbage. The Senate passed a rule committing itself not to consider under reconciliation any healthcare reform bill that satisfied certain conditions. It left it to CBO to determine whether the bill would satisfy those conditions but it is self evident that any bill currently under consideration does satisfy them. The Senate then instructed its conferees to insist on retaining that amendment in conference.
  

  The Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad betrayed his colleagues and acted contrary to their instructions. We know for a fact that it was he because the House conferees had no political purchase on the provision. It could only be stripped out with Conrad’s acquiescence.

• Now someone wants to turn around and argue that the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply because it is no longer in the Budget Resolution and, oh by the way even if it were still in the Budget Resolution it wouldn’t make any difference anyway because CBO would not certify any current bill under consideration as satisfying the conditions established by the amendment.
• Of course the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply, but they had to cheat to strip it so that it wouldn’t apply
• We should not allow ourselves to be conned into defending status quo rules when other rules and long tradition of the Senate had to be broken to get us to this status quo – this is so Republican.
• Instead, we should be arguing that the Senate should abide by the rule it adopted for itself anyway because it should still be in the resolution and would be in the resolution if the Democrats hadn’t played games and the Republicans hadn’t slept through them.
• As for CBO, we must simply assert that the only way CBO could possibly not certify a bill as satisfying the conditions of the amendment is if they were being manipulated by the Democrats. This is not as far fetched as you think. Recall Obama met with the CBO director – the first time a President has ever done that.

In closing:

• The Republicans have the rules and the politics on their side, and they have simply been unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it just as they were unwilling to fight ObamaCare and RINOCare until we made it impossible for them not to.
• We have to stick the ball in their hands and push them out front so either they run with it or get crushed. We have to re-focus the debate on fairness, abiding by the rules.
• We have an ally. Oddly enough, Democrat Robert C. Byrd provides us the best arguments for not passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation.

The establishment knows how to play the game and that is why they take us to the cleaners on a regular basis – in the past. Now its our turn. Spin cycle anyone?

It’s up to us, the grassroots. We can’t go all wobbly on America now.

The American people will want to know why was it stripped to begin with? More importantly, why wouldn’t the Senate abide by its own rule? The House has no say in it. FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON.

Kill ObamaCare. Hit the reset switch. Then we can do it right. Simple free-market solutions exist which can drive down costs without liberty destroying legislation that favors big government and/or big business and without the budget busting price tag attached to all these proposals.