Greg Sargent reports that Brad Ellsworth, a key potential member of the Stupak bloc, is a yes on health care.
Another big get for Dems: Rep Brad Ellsworth, a former Yes vote who shared the concerns of the Stupak dozen and was intensely wooed by both sides, will vote Yes on the Senate bill, his spokesman confirms to me.
“He’s a Yes,” Jonathan Kott, communications director for Ellsworth, just said by phone. “He will vote in favor of health care reform.”
A press release detailing his rationale is forthcoming from his office.
Ellsworth, running for US Senate in Indiana, probably couldn’t say no and expect any kind of national fundraising for his candidacy.
Ellsworth’s Yes vote is one of the key ones needed by the leadership. That makes it 198-209, 206-212 with leaners. And importantly, under my metrics outlined in a previous post it could make Democrats as close as two votes away from passage.
There are pitfalls, however; the Medicare reimbursement disparity being chief among them. Alec MacGillis has a very good article detailing that. An excerpt:
A long-running tussle in Congress over regional Medicare reimbursement rates has erupted into a last-minute clash that has at least one House Democrat threatening to withdraw his support for the health-care overhaul up for a vote Sunday.
At the heart of the dispute is an attempt by hospitals and doctors in areas with lower per-patient Medicare spending — mostly in the Upper Midwest and Northwest — to reform the Medicare payment system to reward the “high-value” care that they practice, which they argue would help reduce health-care spending over the long run [...]
Rep. Peter DeFazio, a liberal Democrat from Oregon, told The Post Friday that unless congressional leaders restore the House language on Medicare payments, he will vote against the bill. “I will oppose the bill unless they fix geographic disparity,” he said.
“If they need my vote, they can address it….” he said. “We can shovel money into Louisiana, but our fix is gone … because there are some powerful East Coast senators who don’t want it in there.”
UPDATE: Just spoke with Rep. Ellsworth’s office and confirmed he’s a Yes. They’re sending over a statement.
UPDATE II: The statement, on the flip. Key line: “After assurance from the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Nuns and pro-life advocates I am confident in my heart that this bill meets my pro-life principles.” The nuns gave him cover.
“Like most Americans I was frustrated by this process throughout. Unfortunately many in both parties made snap judgments on whether or not they would support this bill based on politics, not policy. I was sent here to look at all sides of the argument in a thoughtful manner and I knew that the status quo was no longer acceptable. I needed to answer only one question when deciding whether to support this reform: will this bill benefit Hoosiers? Put simply, in my core I know it does.”
“There is no issue more important or more personal to every single Hoosier than our health and well-being. My job is to look beyond all the political games, study the bill carefully, and do my best to make the right decision for Indiana.”
“After months of meetings and conversations with thousands of Hoosiers, health care experts and pro-life advocates, I am confident supporting health care reform is the right decision for Hoosiers.”
“Starting this year, children with pre-existing conditions will never again be denied coverage. Indiana small businesses will get the tax breaks they desperately need to reduce their health care costs and invest those savings in growing their businesses and creating jobs for Hoosiers. And our seniors will see significant savings on their prescription drug bills as we start to close the Medicare Part D donut hole.
“As a pro-life Hoosier, one of my central concerns has been preventing federal funding of elective abortion. Throughout my brief time in Congress, I have held firm to my pro-life principles, even when it meant going against my party, and I am proud of my 100% pro-life voting record on abortion-related issues. I have spent time listening carefully to constituents, pro-life leaders, policy experts and reading all the details of every bill. After assurance from the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Nuns and pro-life advocates I am confident in my heart that this bill meets my pro-life principles and upholds the policy of no federal funding for elective abortions. More than that, it invests $250 million in support services for women facing unplanned pregnancies and over a billion dollars to help families afford adoption services. These investments will reduce the number of abortions in America.”
“In addition to meeting my pro-life principles, the plan reduces costs, improves access to affordable insurance options, covers pre-existing conditions, and does not add one penny to the deficit – my five principles for health care reform.”




11 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The Open Lefters are all caps and exclamation points about Kosmas declaring yes.
Hiding behind the skirts again, gutless buggers.
Ellsworth just lost the Senate race, IMO. Rock and a hard spot for him I guess.
I just got an email from the Working Families Party saying the my CongressMess, Mike Arcuri, is voting ‘no’.
WellPoint
Edit: and check out the graph for the last year. Better yet, compare it with the S&P500 for the last year.
I’m not sure the health insurance industry can survive another round of HCR.
Without declaring a stock split, that is.
The Senate bill allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in the exchanges. So passing the Senate bill actually gives the right a big gift in the form of another issue to rally around this fall.
And since Democrats are so defensive when it comes to abortion and reproductive rights, expect lots of Democrats to cave (something Democrats are good at) and support the prohibition efforts, so as not to alienate all the anti-choice voters who will never vote for them anyway.
In addition to meeting my pro-life principles” except for those who will die becuase the bill does not privide universal health care
the plan reduces costs: for whom? How?
improves access to affordable insurance options: Is this Health Care or Junk Insurance?
covers pre-existing conditions: except unregulated claims by insurance cos. of fraud
and does not add one penny to the deficit: unlike foreign wars
that’s what i think my Congresslady is doing. Lemme check
Man man. She’s got her own(almost her own) post here. She’s a yes. She’s toast.
I’ve been here on and off for the last 5 years and am frustrated confused and don’t know where the “truth” begins and ends. I do know I hate things as they are in the health care system. My dad has severe health care issues but is old enough and is on medicare (as a supplement to mom’s employee health care). Given the limited money they have, and the truly extrordinary costs of the drugs dad is on, the extra $250 a year to close some of their out of pocket costs may not seem like alot but it is to them. I don’t know if this legislation is an overall gain or loss but I truly believe it won’t make things worse for them. Am I missing something about this legislation other than it’s only a baby step in the right (correct) direction? Sorry to not have posted before. – Jason
So they obviously have the votes. At this point it’s just a game of musical chairs to see which particular Members of Congress get to vote “no” at the end of the day. The only question is which 216 congressmen vote aye. What a complete and utter shell game.
I think I’m like most Americans at this point: I’m beyond the details of this bill. A few improvements, a few huge steps back, and a very dangerous precedent mandating Americans buy defective products from private insurers whether they want to or not.
People don’t care about process, Mr. President? I disagree… not when the process shows such thoroughgoing dishonesty and corruption. I don’t believe anything they say in Washington, because it doesn’t matter: they think they know better than the American people. They think they know what’s “good” for us, what’s “realistic”, what’s “best.”
They take us for fools. And apparently, judging from the lock-step determination of the veal pen to pass this thing with no future assurance of “fixes”, they may be right.