Most politicians, try as they might, can't manage to vote on an issue and emerge having no clearly discernible position on the matter. One who can, apparently, is Florida's Senator Bill Nelson, who cast near-simultaneous votes for and against the public option last week on the Senate Finance Committee. First, he voted against the Rockefeller amendment, considered the stronger of the two options before the committee, and then pivoting to support the weaker Schumer amendment. Both versions failed. In any case, after these two votes, it's hard to call Bill Nelson a strong supporter of a robust public option.
Which is why the following letter I've obtained, one that Nelson seems to be sending his constituents, is pretty amusing. The person who forwarded it to me specifically complained to the Senator's office about Nelson's non-support of the Rockefeller amendment, which is noticeably absent from a reply that could have been written by HCAN:
I'm writing you because I know that you're interested in health care reform.
There’s been a lot of confusing information flying around about the latest developments on health care reform. Most of the media is declaring as dead the idea of a public insurance plan. They’re wrong.
A public insurance plan may be down, but it’s not out.
As The New York Times reported on Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee rejected two Democratic proposals to create a government insurance plan to keep private insurers in check.
Leadership tells me one of those plans, by Senator Schumer, still has a shot at being included in the final bill. And that’s the plan I voted for. I believe it offers help for consumers through fair competition to private insurers.
While it was defeated in the committee by 13-10, Senator Schumer promised right after the vote he’ll keep fighting to get his proposal in the broader health care bill. He’ll have my continued backing.
We’re going to keep fighting to make health insurance available and affordable for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Senator Bill Nelson
So what's the deal here? Seems like Bill Nelson would like to keep his progressive supporters on board, despite his hot and cold take on the public option. I just wonder what Nelson is telling public option opponents, writing to complain about his vote for the Schumer amendment. Either way, sounds like a classic case of trying to have it both ways while avoiding a principled stand.
Also, check out this nice breakdown of the Finance Committee votes from the Sunlight Foundation.
Comments