Have you heard that 35 senators have signed on to a letter supporting the effort to pass a public option via reconciliation?
According to Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet’s letter: "We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules. There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approachits potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option."
How much money would a public option save? Bennet's letter states: “CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation.”
I’ve asked the offices of Wisconsin’s two senators about their willingness to use reconciliation to pass the public option. Here are their responses:
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on reconciliation: “Reconciliation was intended to be used to reduce budget deficits. It isn’t appropriate to use it to move wide-ranging health care reform measures, such as the bills passed by the House and Senate. But I am open to using reconciliation to enact provisions that are targeted specifically at reducing budget deficits.”
Ashley Glacel, aide to U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, sent me this response: “It is Senator Kohl's policy not to project how he'll vote in advance on any piece of legislation, on any subject. There are too many things that can be modified or amended up to the final minute before a vote. However, throughout the health reform debate Senator Kohl has consistently said that he supported a public option that creates a level playing field.”
