×
Except, one major caveat is that it would be more politically and historically difficult for Snowe to filibuster a complete health-care bill with a public option than to merely threaten to do so. Plus, it would be more than possible for the Senate leadership and the White House to pass a Senate bill without a public option and then add the House's during conference committee. The bill presented before the Senate then would have an even greater finality to it, making it even more difficult for Snowe to give a no vote.
That Reid and Obama are choosing not to go that route suggests that they either are supremely confident that they can break a filibuster on a public option-inclusive bill before conference, or that they did not see Snowe's threat coming. Let's hope it's the former.
With Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad telling reporters that the Obama administration and Harry Reid are leaning toward including a public option in the combined Senate health-care reform bill, today should be a banner one for progressive advocacy. When that news is combined with this reporting from Brian Beutler, however, it feels more like a disaster:
In a huddle with reporters moments ago, I asked Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) for her thoughts on a public option compromise that would allow states to opt out of a national government insurance program, and her answer could slow down the proposal's considerable momentum.This may not play out well. There now seem to be three proposals that could get Snowe's support: her beloved trigger, a Conrad-style "co-op" plan, or Tom Carper's state-level public option proposal -- none of which achieve the savings of a real public option. Either the White House convinces each and every Democratic senator not to filibuster -- a tough goal given the positions Mary Landrieu and Nelson have been staking out -- or else it inserts a Snowe-friendly compromise. Otherwise, I do not see how the math of the Senate results in cloture for this bill."I don't support that," Snowe said.
Asked further whether she would participate in a filibuster on a bill with a public option, she went almost all the way.
"I've said, I'm against a public option...yes...it would be difficult" to support allowing the bill to proceed to a vote.
Except, one major caveat is that it would be more politically and historically difficult for Snowe to filibuster a complete health-care bill with a public option than to merely threaten to do so. Plus, it would be more than possible for the Senate leadership and the White House to pass a Senate bill without a public option and then add the House's during conference committee. The bill presented before the Senate then would have an even greater finality to it, making it even more difficult for Snowe to give a no vote.
That Reid and Obama are choosing not to go that route suggests that they either are supremely confident that they can break a filibuster on a public option-inclusive bill before conference, or that they did not see Snowe's threat coming. Let's hope it's the former.
--Dylan Matthews
