For the first time in the year-long debate over health care, House liberals have real leverage and are demanding changes to Senate legislation before they agree to charge ahead. Many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus would even like to see the public option revived and passed in a separate bill through the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.
But in a brief interview last night, one of the House’s top progressives told me leadership isn’t even considering it.
“I don’t believe it fits in the reconciliation,” said Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). “All that is is budget.”
“I haven’t heard why, exactly, but when [leaders] list the things that have budgetary components, the public option’s not on it,” Woolsey added.
That is likely to perplex and disappoint rank and file progressives. When Senate Democrats were gaming out the possibility of passing a comprehensive health care bill through the reconciliation process, they determined that the public option probably could meet the terms of the process’ strict rules.
Still, both Woolsey, and her co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-CA) have pushed the issue. And additionally, 40 Democrats have signed a letter, authored by freshman Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urging the Senate to reanimate the public option.
“As Democrats forge “the path forward” on health care, we believe that passing the public option through reconciliation should be part of that path,” the letter reads. “We urge you to favorably consider our request to include a public option in the reconciliation process.”
So far, though, leadership doesn’t appear to be listening. Woolsey is prepared for that, and she says that she’ll introduce a stand-alone public option bill the day health care reform passes.
“But of course,” she acknowledges, “that would take 60 votes over in the Senate.”
