October 23, 2009 4:19 AM

Key Dems May Hamper Obama's Health Plans

(AP)  The Democrats' control of a hefty majority in the Senate - plus the House - would suggest that President Obama is within reach of overhauling the nation's health care system this fall.

But the numbers mask a more complicated reality: Obama and Democratic leaders have modest leverage over several pivotal Senate Democrats who are more concerned about their next election or feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.

Track the Progress of Health Care Reform
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

One is still smarting from being forced to abandon next year's election. Another had to leave the Democratic Party to stay in office. And some are from states that Obama lost badly last year.

These factors will limit the president's ability to play his strongest card - an appeal for party loyalty and Democratic achievement - in trying to muster the 60 votes his allies will need this fall to overcome a Republican filibuster in the 100-member Senate.

When lawmakers face a tough vote, their uppermost thought is "survival," said Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican who spent three terms in the Senate.

On a very few occasions, Simpson said, then-President George H.W. Bush asked him to cast a vote likely to cause him political problems back home. That was perhaps three times in 18 years, said Simpson, who held a GOP leadership post. "I swallowed hard and went over the cliff," he said.

But it's a sacrifice that presidents and party leaders should not count on, he said.

The Democratic leaders' limited leverage will complicate the push for allowing the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies. Some Senate Democrats who oppose the idea are from states that voted heavily against Obama last fall.

Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a potentially tough re-election race next year in Arkansas, where Obama lost to Republican John McCain by 20 percentage points. She says she will base her health care votes on what is best for Arkansans.

Choice and competition among insurers are good, Lincoln said, but "I've ruled out a government-funded and a government-operated plan."

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Obama lost by a similar margin, said she might be willing to let some states try "fallback or trigger" mechanisms that would create a public option if residents don't have enough insurance choices.

But she told reporters, "I'm not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be."

Another Democratic senator, who also may prove wary of Obama's overtures, takes the opposite stand.

"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," said Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill. "That position will not change."

Burris' willingness to bend could prove crucial this fall if Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., need every possible vote in crafting a compromise, such as a national public option that is triggered if certain insurance availability targets aren't met.

But Burris may be in no mood to play ball. Obama and other top Democrats sharply criticized his appointment to the Senate in December by an ethically tainted governor, Illinois' Rod Blagojevich, and they forced Burris to abandon hopes of winning election in 2010 by making it clear they would not back him.

In short, Burris, 72, has virtually nothing to lose by defying his party's leaders and voting as he pleases.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is another potentially crucial senator with tenuous ties to the Democratic Party's hierarchy. Rejected by Connecticut's Democratic voters in the 2006 primary, he kept his Senate seat by running as an independent. He now calls himself an Independent Democrat.

Lieberman has criticized the health care bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee, but it and other health bills are undergoing changes.

Another centrist Democrat whose vote is uncertain is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a political battleground state.

"I want to know what works for families and small businesses," said Bayh, adding that he might back public insurance options run by states, not the federal government.

It's possible that Obama and party leaders eventually will ask Democrats such as Bayh, in the name of party loyalty, to vote to block a GOP filibuster of a health bill even if they plan to vote against the bill on final passage. The strategy might enable Democrats to muster the 60 votes needed on a crucial procedural question and then pass the bill with a simple majority.

Bayh said that if a party leader "is asking some of us to enable the passage of legislation that we think would be harmful to the people of our state, I don't think that's a fair thing to ask."

It's possible that centrist Democrats are holding out for favors from Obama and party leaders, such as pet projects for their states or help in their next campaign. Obama already has lavished special attention on some of them.

He invited Bayh to the White House last week for a chat about health care and the deficit. In an interview that led to good publicity back home, Bayh told Indiana reporters that the president "was asking for my leadership on both of those issues."

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 30 Comments
by dragon8me October 22, 2009 11:06 AM EDT
The reason Democrats are so conservitive is they are paid for by big corporations like the Republicans. If you banned corporations and other organizations from making campagn contributions maybe they would listen to the people. And pass a public option.
Reply to this comment
by stn_sage October 22, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
THIS...political self-interest...is nothing new!

Many politicians have torpedoed the best interest of their parties in favor of their own self-interest...Lincoln, Landrieu, Baucus, Nelson, Lieberman, and Reid aren't the first and won't be the last!

All the public can do...is see to it that it comes back to haunt them by voting them out of office when we get the chance!
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 October 22, 2009 10:41 AM EDT
Get a clue. Their loyalties should not be with the fringe nuts of the party but with the voters who put them in office. Obama, Reid, Pelosi are fringe nuts.
by endurorob_5 October 22, 2009 10:34 AM EDT
"It's possible that Obama and party leaders eventually will ask Democrats such as Bayh, in the name of party loyalty, to vote to block a GOP filibuster of a health bill even if they plan to vote against the bill on final passage."


There in lies the biggest problem with our politicians, other than incomptance, many feel their highest loyalty belongs to the perty and not to the people who put them in office.
Reply to this comment
by msimamaji October 22, 2009 10:07 AM EDT
Remember that old 1050's classic "How much is the Doggy in the window?"

Well,name the Blue Dog Democrat - Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman - Go to Google. Type in Center for Responsive politics. Then type in the Blue Dog's name - and you can find out that a lot of blue doggy's are for sale. All of these Blue Dogs get generous campaign contributions from health insurance companies and Big pharmas. Bi-Partisan really means Buy-Partisan.

The GOP are a bunch of Greedy Old Prostitutes. The same applies to the Blue Dogs.
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 October 22, 2009 10:29 AM EDT
Big pharma is on Obamas side. He is the one that had transperent closed door meetings with them.
by stn_sage October 22, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
I like that line, "bi-partisan really means buy-partisan"!
SO-O-O TRUE!
by Questionews October 22, 2009 10:07 AM EDT
Looks like the Blue Dogs are lifting their legs & filling Obama's shoe.
Reply to this comment
by jc80013-01 October 22, 2009 10:07 AM EDT
What a bunch of balogna txlakeside...even the French are going back to privatized health care...the Brits on the verge of it, and what's more NONE of them have ever really had universal health care.

It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take care of your lazy behind! It's YOURS!
===============================================================
I know people that work two jobs and still can't afford health insurance. So when those folks go to the Dr. it's in the middle of the night to an emergency room that they could never pay for. You are already paying for their health care you are just getting a lousy deal on it.
Reply to this comment
by txlakeside October 22, 2009 9:45 AM EDT
The US is the "ONLY" industrialized nation that does not have any form of Universal Health Care! Look it up ... we are the "ONLY" country that does not take care of its citizens! Only the dumb as dirt and the greedy ***** mongers do not want to take care of the "PEOPLE"! Vote any DEM or republiCON out that votes against this!
Reply to this comment
by msimamaji October 22, 2009 10:04 AM EDT
Where does TamsinBlight get his or her data.

I was in Both Britian and France last summer. The French are showing no signs of going back to privatized health care. Why should they? A UN report released in 2005 rated the French system as the best medical care system in the world - and it's cheaper than our. In addition according to the CIA 2009 Fact Book, our infant mortality rate is twice as high as the infant mortality rate in France. Our infant mortality rate is also higher than the infant mortality rate in the UK.

While I was in the UK, I fell into a conversation with a British citizen who was horrified at the news he was getting about the US medical system. The UK system has its problems - but they are not nearly as horrible as those in the US. I might also add that the system in the UK also got a higher rating in the UN survey

I've cited my sources. TamsinBlight, can you cite yours??????
by endurorob_5 October 22, 2009 10:38 AM EDT
So they have universal health care. They also have cancer survival rates that are half of what ours are. They also depend on medical treatments develped in this country because they do not have the ability in there own countries to develop cutting edge medical treatments because universal health care does not allow for that.
by stopoil October 22, 2009 9:29 AM EDT
The insurance companies in the health industry is as the banks and Wall Street firms are to the financial industry. The banks nearly killed the financial system but it does not stop their greed. The greed of the insurance companies actually kills thousands of Americans. The analogy is enough to make you ill. The Health Insurance Industry is as outrageous as the Bank and Wall Street industry. We are their cash cow. MOOOOOOOO
And some Americans don't understand why they insurance industry is spending millions in lobbyists against the public option.
If the Canadian, English, French.... systems were so bad don't you think those citizens would be fighting for change? They love it. The public option is a minimum.
Now America 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 = 4 .........
Reply to this comment
by guyinpa1960 October 22, 2009 9:04 AM EDT
awesome.
Reply to this comment
by tz4p99 October 22, 2009 8:53 AM EDT
You mean to tell me that an official who was elected by his or her constituents would have the audacity to put thier own political future before thier voters ! That is so wrong. Please tell me that this doesnt actually happen.
Reply to this comment
See all 30 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook