According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.This actually makes sense. Any healthcare reform that works will cripple the Republican Party for at least a generation, so accommodating the Republicans means that you are making sure that the plan will fail.
Meanwhile, on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is doing his best to kill a public option:
It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said.I think that Emanuel believes that a big war chest is the only determinant to winning elections, and he does not want to offend the deep pockets of the insurance industry.
"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," he said in an interview. "The goal is non-negotiable; the path is" negotiable.
President Barack Obama has campaigned vigorously for a full public option. But he's also said that he won't draw a "line in the sand" over this point. On Tuesday, the White House issued a statement reiterating his support for a public plan.
His actions as the head of the DCCC, when he decided to ran the hapless Tammy Duckworth at the expense of Christine Cegelis in the Illinois Congressional 6th district, where he dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the primary, and over a million in the general, keeping a Republican in the seat, are a good example of why his "campaign funds trump everything," philosophy is a complete lose.
0 comments :
Post a Comment