Media cast public plan option as too controversial for passage in Senate

In recent reports on competing health care proposals coming out of the Senate, several media outlets have advanced the notion that inclusion of a public insurance plan in a health care reform bill would make the bill too controversial to pass and promoted what they refer to as the "compromise" or "fallback" option of a cooperative plan. They advance these positions by reporting as fact or uncritically repeating the claim that any health care reform legislation would require 60 votes to pass in the Senate. As a result, they say, a "compromise" cooperative plan would have a far better chance of getting the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

But beyond the media's tendency, identified by Media Matters for America, to characterize the plan option as the left-most position, the claim that a health care bill would require 60 votes to pass ignores a procedural option available to the Senate leadership -- that of including health care reform legislation in a budget reconciliation bill that is not subject to filibuster and requires a simple majority to pass. As Bloomberg News reported, this option "would allow" health care measures "to pass the Senate with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes that would be needed to overcome stalling tactics by Republicans."

Nonetheless, the media frequently report that health care reform legislation would require 60 votes. For example:

• In a June 28 Washington Post article, staff writer Ceci Connolly reported that "in the Senate, where the Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, members are weighing alternatives such as a nonprofit cooperative or a 'fallback' provision that would kick in only if market reforms fail." Media Matters for America has previously identified several flaws in her June 28 article, following a series of other misleading reports by Connolly on the effort to pass health care reform legislation.

• A June 15 USA Today article reported that "one variation" of health care reform proposals being discussed in Congress, "proposed by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., is the creation of a non-profit cooperative managed by its membership. Because it would not be run by the government, the co-op could offer a compromise to attract the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and take a final vote in the Senate, Conrad said."

• A June 14 Associated Press article reported that "leading" the "pack" of "compromise" health care legislation that did not include a public plan was "the cooperative approach, similar to rural utilities that have government financial support but operate independently. Sen. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who chairs the Budget Committee, has offered the co-op idea as a way to avoid a bruising and protracted political wrangle on Capitol Hill." The AP further reported:

"This really isn't, to me, a matter of right or wrong," Conrad said. "This is a matter of: Where are the votes in the United States Senate?"

That political situation has guided most of the talks. While Democrats control both chambers of Congress, they have only 59 senators -- one short of the number needed to end a Republican filibuster. Even if Al Franken were seated as Minnesota's second senator, Kennedy and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., are suffering health problems that could preclude them from casting votes to end the procedural delay.

"I think you are in a 60-vote environment. And that means you have got to attract some Republicans, as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together," Conrad said. "And that, I don't believe, is possible with the pure public option. I don't think the votes are there."

As Media Matters has noted, Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass legislation including the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.