No matter the outcome of the midterm election, it is indisputable that the last Congress was one of the most productive ever. For all of the Pelosi haters out there, Speaker Pelosi accomplished a great deal in the past four years, including many things that Republicans would have supported in the past (such as tax cuts). Her image as a “San Francisco liberal” did not make her many friends in the nation’s mid-section and President Obama rarely defended her, despite the fact that she was carrying his bucket in the House. Here are just a few of the many accomplishments that Pelosi managed when she was House Speaker:

*Extending unemployment benefits. The roughly 10-15% of people unemployed in this area (depending on which county you live in) would not have unemployment benefits if the GOP had their way.
*Expanding health care coverage to all Americans by 2014 (unless Republicans de-fund it, which is quite possible)
*Regulating the banks to make sure that future bailouts do not happen.
*Ending the bank bailouts from the Bush years.
*Increasing funding for financial aid to college, including Pell Grants and reducing the cost of student loans.
*Creating an estimated 3.7 million jobs with the Recovery Act

I would stand by that record any day of the week. The Republicans got us into the ditch and the Democrats got us out. It wasn’t easy and times are still tough, but we are on the path to recovery. Going down the Republican path of de-regulation and tax cuts for the rich will only ensure a future economic collapse.

WellPoint was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted them and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators. Once the women were singled out, they say, the insurer then canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information.

This is a horrible story – something that I hope never happens to someone that I know. Yet it has happened and the insurance companies will continue to try to do this even with health care reform passed. This is why we need a public option. Extending Medicare to anyone that wants it would be the most cost affective approach. The government would not even need to start a new program. People that are satisfied being screwed by private insurers could keep their coverage while the rest of us could have the peace of mind knowing that when you get cancer your coverage will not get dropped.

The bill extends insurance to 32 million Americans that previously did not have health insurance, reduces the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades, bans the insurance industry practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and bans insurance companies from dropping coverage due to health. While Republicans have complained about a lack of bipartisanship, the bill includes over 200 Republican amendments.

Percentage wise, the vote was a lot closer in the House than it was in the Senate. The reason that the Senate got all of our attention was because of the Republican’s obstruction tactics, namely the filibuster, which requires 3/5 for passage instead of a majority vote. The President and Democratic leaders in the Senate appear to be ready to break the Republican’s filibuster attempts by passing a “fixed” version of the bill using a procedural device known as reconciliation.

It’s worth noting that Republicans attacking Democrats for using procedural shortcuts are themselves using procedural roadblocks. The filibuster is not in the Constitution and it is not even a law. It is simply a rule within the Senate which can be revised at the start of each Congress. Reconciliation, however, is in fact a law that was passed in the 1970s to reconcile budget issues. This is exactly what Democrats are likely to use it for as they will make changes to their original bill such as how to pay for it.

Going back to the House, though, it is unlikely that Speaker Pelosi currently has the votes to pass the Senate bill. There are two major hurdles that Democrats will need to face before President Obama can finally sign the bill. The first is that Democrats have literally lost three of their members from resignations and a death. Representative Jack Murtha recently passed away, Rep. Neil Abercrombie resigned to focus on his bid for governor of Hawaii and Robert Wexler resigned to head the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. In other words, with these vacancies, the Democrats stand at 217-215, not enough to pass the bill. A majority of the chamber is 218. The sole Republican to vote with Democrats, Joseph Cao, has stated that he will likely vote against it the second time. That puts Democrats two votes short of a majority.

Is it possible for Nancy Pelosi to strong-arm Democrats that voted against the bill to vote for this revised bill? Certainly it is possible, she could threaten everything from fundraising to committee spots, but most of the Democrats that voted no are conservatives from mostly rural and/or Southern districts. She could make the argument that even Democrats that voted against the health care bill are in big trouble – perhaps because they are undercutting their base. In New Mexico, Harry Teague is trailing former Congressman Pearce by two points, even though he voted against the original bill. Would he be in a stronger position if he had voted to extend insurance benefits to the 45 million that currently live without it? Probably, especially in a relatively poor state like New Mexico.

The second problem for Democrats in the House is the issue of abortion. Bart Stupak of Michigan was successful in passing an amendment that would ban any insurance policies from covering an elective abortion in the bill’s insurance exchange, which would include policy choices from both private and public insurance plans. Democrats in the Senate sought to continue the ban on any public funds going towards abortion, but did not want to restrict private insurance plans in the exchange from offering it. It’s questionable whether pro-life Democrats will vote for the House bill if the Stupak amendment is not present and it’s equally questionable whether pro-choice Democrats will vote for a bill that includes it.

*Edit*

According to CNN, due to the vacancies, the majority in the House is now 217.

The primary obstacle is Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. He has stated publicly on multiple occasions throughout the past couple weeks that he will join Republicans in filibustering the bill in the Senate if a public option is not removed. His opposition is not acceptable. Having received over $1 million from the insurance industry, Senator Lieberman is siding with Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield over his real constituents – who support the public option by over 60%.

Lieberman is showing his true ideological colors. Having voted for the Iraq War and publicly condemning Democrats that opposed it, he was an ally of the Bush administration when Democrats needed him most. In 2006, having pledged to respect the wishes of the voters, he ran as a Democrat and lost the primary to Ned Lamont. He broke his word and created his own party called the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party (as comedian Colbert pointed out, it’s Connecticut for Lieberman, not Lieberman for Connecticut).

Having managed to split the Democratic vote in the 2006 general election, Lieberman returned to Washington as an independent, but continued to caucus with the Democrats. As a result, he retained his seniority and became the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee as Democrats gained a majority in the Senate.

It became clear that Lieberman was not going to support the Democratic nominee for president in 2008 as he began campaigning with John McCain. If that was not enough, he couldn’t definitively say whether Barack Obama was a Marxist – he would only “hesitate to say” it. Of course Barack Obama resoundingly thumped John McCain by nearly 10 million votes and the were swept into a 60 seat majority (by the time that Al Franken was finally seated in 2009). Yet there was no punishment for his betrayal of the party and its nominee. The President actually went out of his way to defend Lieberman, calling on the Senate leadership to keep him in the fold and let him keep his chairmanship.

Apparently being a thorn in the side of the Democrats is too much joy for Senator Lieberman to avoid for very long. His opposition to a healthcare bill that included a public option – that just a few years ago he said that he supported – is his latest traitorous act. Joining a Republican filibuster on the most important legislation in our generation is not acceptable. Lieberman and any other Democrats that prevent an up-or-down vote on healthcare should be stripped of their committee chairmanships and face a primary challenge from someone that will support the will of the people.

If you live in the state of Connecticut and support the public option, you should either call, e-mail or show up at the office of Senator Lieberman. Tell him that if he does not support the people of Connecticut over the big insurance giants that you will vote him out of office in 2012. Below is how you can reach him:

Washington, DC Office

706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 Voice

Connecticut Office

One Constitution Plaza
7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 549-8463 Voice
(800) 225-5605 In CT

While Senator Lieberman is the only member of our caucus that has said he would join a Republican filibuster of healthcare, there are other conservative senators that need to be reminded of why they were elected. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is one of them.

355 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4843

912 West Fourth Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 375-2993
Fax (501) 375-7064
Toll Free 1-800-352-9364

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska

Washington, D.C.
720 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 1-202-224-6551

Omaha
7602 Pacific St.
Suite 205
Omaha, NE 68114
Tel: (402) 391-3411

The poll also found more good news for Democrats that favor a public option. A majority of the public supports passing a public option even if it lacks any Republican votes at all:

Faced with a basic strategic choice that soon may confront the administration and Democratic congressional leaders, a slim majority of Americans, 51 percent, would prefer a reform plan that included some form of government insurance for people who cannot get affordable private coverage even if it had no GOP support in Congress. Thirty-seven percent would rather have a bipartisan plan without such a choice. Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of this question, with independents preferring legislation with a public option and without Republican support by 52 to 35 percent.

It’s clear where the public stands. Now Democrats needs to listen to those that elected them to change the system. Republicans will oppose any healthcare reform bill, whether it has a public option or not. We should put forward the strongest possible plan and that would be one that includes a competitor to private insurers. That is the only way costs will be driven down while protecting consumers.

Harkin’s ascension to chairman should give a boost to public option proponents as Kennedy was too ill to be much of an influence on the legislation currently making its way through Congress. “I’m ready to carry on [Kennedy's] work, and I’m ready to get a health reform bill passed and to President Obama before Christmas comes this December,” Harkin said at his annual Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa.

In regards to the bill making its way through the Senate right now, “That bill — mark my word, I’m the chairman — is going to have a strong public option,” he said to thunderous applause. “We lost a great progressive, a great leader on so many issues…It now falls to me to pick up the torch,” Harkin said. “No one can take Ted Kennedy’s place, but I tell you this, I’m ready for this fight, I’m ready to lead this committee.”

Here’s the exact wording of the question:

“In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance–extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?”