« The Continuing Disaster of Wall Street, One Year Later | Robert Reich's Blog | Why the Dow is Hitting 10,000 Even When Consumers Can't Buy And Business Cries "Socialism" »
Why Olympia Snowe Should Vote Against the Baucus Plan
How is it that a decision next week by a single Senator from Maine will almost certainly determine whether America's future healthcare system is still in the hands of private for-profit insurance companies and Big Pharma or enables more Americans to get better health care at lower cost? Bear with me, because you need to know what's likely to happen if she signs on, and if she doesn't. The next few weeks are crucial.
Scenario One: If Olympia Snowe votes in favor of Max Baucus's plan -- which is favored by the medical-industrial complex because it dramatically increases their customer base without a public option that squeezes their profits -- the Baucus plan will be the bill that goes to the Senate floor. Why? Because her vote will give enough political cover to waivering Dems Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb, and Evan Bayh to gain their support for the Baucus plan. Which means the White House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate will have a good chance to get the 60 votes they need when the bill goes to the Senate floor in a few weeks.
That Senate vote will push Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems toward the right. That's because it will embolden conservative and Blue Dog House Dems to threaten to vote against the far stronger bill that's already emerged from House committees -- which, in contrast to the Senate Finance bill, includes a public option, an employer mandate, significant expansion of Medicaid, and larger government subsidies to others with lower incomes. Pelosi knows she can't get a single Republican vote, so has to count on the support of at least 218 out of 256 Democrats. That means winning over at least 38 conservatives and Blue Dog Dems-- many of whom were elected from swing districts and some of whom face strong Republican challengers in 2010. With Baucus's bill gaining momentum, or perhaps already having been passed, the conservatives and Blue Dogs in the House will demand a bill that's closer to it. House progressives will put up a fight but there's little question that the emerging compromise will be to the right of where the House is right now.
The two bills then go to a reconciliation committee where the White House can put some final touches on it before it goes back to the two chambers for a final vote. The White House likes this scenario because it keeps private insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the AMA from bolting. It enables the President to call the resulting bill "bipartisan," and to claim that it marks real reform. And maintains the possibility of Republican support for financial reform and environmental legislation next year.
Scnenario Two: If Snowe decides not to sign on, history moves in a very different direction. Most importantly, the Senate Dems know they won't possibly have 60 votes they need. So they'll have to say goodbye to bipartisanship -- perhaps even farewell to Nelson, Landrieu, Webb, and Bayh -- and bundle healthcare reform into a "reconciliation" bill that can pass with 51. This new goal post strengthens the hand of Senate progressives on the Finance Committee, like Rockefeller. It also gives more weight to the version of health care reported out by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee -- which includes a public insurance option, employer mandate, and more generous subisidies to the poor and lower middle class. Hence, the bill that goes to the Senate floor is much more progressive, and the final Senate's vote (with 51 votes) better reflects the values of the Democratic base.
This Senate vote, moreover, gives more momentum and legitimacy to the House version of health care -- which also includes the public option, employer mandate, broader Medicaid coverage, and more generous subsidies to the lower middle class. That Senate vote thereby reduces the power of House Blue Dogs and conservative Dems to influence the bill that goes to the House floor. It also enables Pelosi to say to them: It's either this or nothing. If you vote against this bill you're voting against health care reform. The more progressive Senate bill, plus the stark choice Pelosi poses, garners enough votes from the conservative and Blue Dog Dems to pass a strong bill.
The White House doesn't like this scenario because the use of a reconciliation bill in the Senate poisons relations with Republicans and risks their support for financial reform and cap-and-trade. It may even make it more difficult for Obama to rely on Republican support for more troops in Afghanistan. But as we move into the gravitational pull of the 2010 midterms, congressional Republicans won't support Obama anyway, on anything. And remember, George W. Bush used reconciliation early in his first term to enact his huge tax cuts, mostly for the very wealthy. It's a tried-and-true strategy.
I don't know about you, but I'm hoping the Senator from Maine votes no next week. If she does, America has a fighting chance of getting real healthcare reform.
Scenario One: If Olympia Snowe votes in favor of Max Baucus's plan -- which is favored by the medical-industrial complex because it dramatically increases their customer base without a public option that squeezes their profits -- the Baucus plan will be the bill that goes to the Senate floor. Why? Because her vote will give enough political cover to waivering Dems Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb, and Evan Bayh to gain their support for the Baucus plan. Which means the White House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate will have a good chance to get the 60 votes they need when the bill goes to the Senate floor in a few weeks.
That Senate vote will push Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems toward the right. That's because it will embolden conservative and Blue Dog House Dems to threaten to vote against the far stronger bill that's already emerged from House committees -- which, in contrast to the Senate Finance bill, includes a public option, an employer mandate, significant expansion of Medicaid, and larger government subsidies to others with lower incomes. Pelosi knows she can't get a single Republican vote, so has to count on the support of at least 218 out of 256 Democrats. That means winning over at least 38 conservatives and Blue Dog Dems-- many of whom were elected from swing districts and some of whom face strong Republican challengers in 2010. With Baucus's bill gaining momentum, or perhaps already having been passed, the conservatives and Blue Dogs in the House will demand a bill that's closer to it. House progressives will put up a fight but there's little question that the emerging compromise will be to the right of where the House is right now.
The two bills then go to a reconciliation committee where the White House can put some final touches on it before it goes back to the two chambers for a final vote. The White House likes this scenario because it keeps private insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the AMA from bolting. It enables the President to call the resulting bill "bipartisan," and to claim that it marks real reform. And maintains the possibility of Republican support for financial reform and environmental legislation next year.
Scnenario Two: If Snowe decides not to sign on, history moves in a very different direction. Most importantly, the Senate Dems know they won't possibly have 60 votes they need. So they'll have to say goodbye to bipartisanship -- perhaps even farewell to Nelson, Landrieu, Webb, and Bayh -- and bundle healthcare reform into a "reconciliation" bill that can pass with 51. This new goal post strengthens the hand of Senate progressives on the Finance Committee, like Rockefeller. It also gives more weight to the version of health care reported out by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee -- which includes a public insurance option, employer mandate, and more generous subisidies to the poor and lower middle class. Hence, the bill that goes to the Senate floor is much more progressive, and the final Senate's vote (with 51 votes) better reflects the values of the Democratic base.
This Senate vote, moreover, gives more momentum and legitimacy to the House version of health care -- which also includes the public option, employer mandate, broader Medicaid coverage, and more generous subsidies to the lower middle class. That Senate vote thereby reduces the power of House Blue Dogs and conservative Dems to influence the bill that goes to the House floor. It also enables Pelosi to say to them: It's either this or nothing. If you vote against this bill you're voting against health care reform. The more progressive Senate bill, plus the stark choice Pelosi poses, garners enough votes from the conservative and Blue Dog Dems to pass a strong bill.
The White House doesn't like this scenario because the use of a reconciliation bill in the Senate poisons relations with Republicans and risks their support for financial reform and cap-and-trade. It may even make it more difficult for Obama to rely on Republican support for more troops in Afghanistan. But as we move into the gravitational pull of the 2010 midterms, congressional Republicans won't support Obama anyway, on anything. And remember, George W. Bush used reconciliation early in his first term to enact his huge tax cuts, mostly for the very wealthy. It's a tried-and-true strategy.
I don't know about you, but I'm hoping the Senator from Maine votes no next week. If she does, America has a fighting chance of getting real healthcare reform.
Advertisement
I think there is a serious bipartisan opportunity here - joining forces to pressure Snowe into voting against the bill. Even Glenn Beck would sign on.
September 17, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there a Dilbert cartoon about this?
Yup, found it:
September 17, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A recall a slide of a project flowchart - a maze of indecipherable lines, symbols and boxes with an error point to the bottom box labeled "a miracle occurs".
September 17, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. A capitalist economy, which we've chosen to live with/in, is based on the profit motive and accumulation of capital, apparently limitless. The health insurance consortia have fulfilled those criteria, in spades. So what's the gripe.
September 17, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is also based on real competition, something totally lacking in the insurance industry.
September 17, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health and healthcare aren't cars or cheesburgers or newspaper delivery or any other consumer commodity that people can take or leave. When people get seriously ill or injured they can't decide not to receive healthcare(though some conservatives might say, "why not").
UK, Germany, Japan, France, Israel, Australia, Canada are all also capitalist economies. What's yer point?
September 17, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that this abomination, this horror I can't even dignify by calling a health-care system is the unfortunate yet predictable kind of health care available today to Americans simply because we have chosen free-market capitalism as our preferred economic system. My question is just what did we expect.
Unwilling or unable to admit that capitalism like any man-made system is a flawed system, and horrified by the socialized health care systems adopted by much of the rest of the world, we will probably end up inventing (and adopting) yet another abomination.
(If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm a socialist.)
September 18, 2009 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall getting any choices about what kind of economic paradigm was adhered to by the society into which I was born.
I'm not entirely averse to using principles of market economics to pursue efficiency in meeting societal goals - where appropriate.
I am quite averse to pretending that we're using those principles, when we're not.
"Perfect information" means I get to investigate the CEO of HealthSouth's wallet.
And his colon, if that's relevant to his CEOing.
Drop trou, dude.
September 18, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So one republican = bipartisan? Only in Congressland.
What a bunch of selfish sons of bitches. Let's hear it for the insurance companies -- the only real winners here: BOOOOOOOO!
September 17, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second C'Ville's boooo.
When, if ever, will the House and Senate consider what their political calculations mean to our individual -- and collective -- budget considerations?
September 17, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thirding the BOOO!
September 17, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are we going to be able to agree as a group that there are no democrats or republicans? They are Republicrats... There may be an exception here and there, but by and large they care far less for us than they do their chances of reelection. This is politics plain and simple... They are playing politics with our health and our financial stability, both individually and as a country.
September 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman, minced no words about Sen. Max Baucus's healthcare proposal, unveiled to the public this morning. "The Baucus bill is the worst piece of healthcare legislation I've seen in 30 years," Dean said last night at a healthcare town hall
and book signing in Washington. "In fact, it's a $60 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry every year," he said. "It was written by healthcare lobbyists, so that's not a surprise. It's an outrage."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/09/16/howard-dean-blasts-baucus-healthcare-bill.html
September 17, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCD: did you (or others) get an email from Dean today? In it, he talked about the nonsense we're hearing about having to have sixty votes to pass legislation with a public option. Read it here:
"We've worked together since the beginning of the healthcare debate to draw a line in the sand -- the choice of a public option must be included in any reform bill passed this year. And every time Republicans have tried to kill it or the insurance industry has claimed it's already dead, we've stood up and proven them wrong.
The new line from opponents of reform is that Congress doesn't have the votes to pass a public option.
Once again, thanks to you, we've proven them wrong.
We've asked everyone in Congress where they stand. At least 218 House and 51 Senate Democrats have said they would vote for the final healthcare bill if it included the choice of a public option rather than vote against the bill and kill reform. That means Congress has the majority votes needed to pass a public option -- TODAY.
Now is the season for action. The majority of Americans want it. Majority votes in Congress will pass it. Join President Obama in calling on Congress to get the job done this year.
ADD YOUR NAME NOW
Some have said it takes 60 votes to pass any bill in the U.S. Senate. It's a myth.
It's a myth because while any Senator can attempt to block most Senate bills with a procedural tactic called the filibuster, there are exceptions. Senate rules don't allow filibusters of certain bills that affect the budget. That's right; the healthcare reform plan including the choice of a public option can be passed in a budget bill by a majority vote in the U.S. Senate.
Don't take my word for it. Numerous budget scholars and experts on Senate procedure have staked their reputations on it. Stan Collender, a contributing editor at the National Journal, contributing writer for Roll Call, and author of "The Guide to the Federal Budget" is an expert on the subject. Here's how he explains it:
"The House-passed version of the 2010 budget resolution allows health care reform to be included in a reconciliation bill and, therefore, adopted in the Senate with 51 votes..."
"First, contrary to what some have been saying, reconciliation has become such a standard part of the budget process that using it for health care would be neither surprising nor precedent-setting. When they were in the majority, Republicans insisted that reconciliation was allowed by Senate rules and used it in 2001, 2003 and 2005. Back then, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who has been one of the biggest opponents of using reconciliation this year, made what in retrospect is an almost infamous floor speech about the appropriateness and legality of using reconciliation.
Second, health care reform will have a substantial impact on federal finances and so can't be said to be unrelated to the budget, which is one of the critical criteria for using reconciliation. In fact, given that at least two of the largest mandatory federal spending programs — Medicare and Medicaid — are health care programs; health care reform and reconciliation would seem to be a perfect fit."
Over 25 times in history the Senate has passed major reforms this way, including the Bush tax cuts and funding for the Iraq War. Whether the Senate passes reform through a budget bill or in a different bill that has overcome a filibuster, the truth of the matter is it only takes a majority vote to get the job done."
-- Howard Dean
September 17, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, no I'm only on the Obama mailing list. Dean is one of the few who does not live in the DC alternate universe of spin and BS.
September 17, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senate progressives ...like Rockefeller
After pausing to marvel at the change in *one family in a century, may we not find some comfort in Plan B.
Snowe votes yes., Rocky, Kerry & Schumer vote no, the committee rejects the bill 12 to 11, giving Reid cover to brinig the H.E.L.P. bill to the floor.
*There's a man in Hell with a pocketful of dimes who is grinding his teeth in disbelief at the line quoted.
September 17, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
>
Incidentally, why exactly is it that the HELP bill is DOA? Are we just paying the senators on that committee to sit around in some sort of circle-jerk?
September 17, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone comment on -- or refer to a site with a description - pros and cons - of the "reconciliation" process? I keep hearing all sorts of different things about it.
Not so worried about the 'poisoning relations with the Republicans' part (could they become worse?) as comments I've heard that you can only get certain types of legislation passed that way and couldn't have a full, well-rounded bill. I believe they have to be fasioned as tax measures or finance measures or something? Well, obviously I don't know ..... which is why I'm asking.
September 17, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with Prof. Reich's analysis. Just because Snowe supports the Baucus bill doesn't mean this is what we have to live with. There are multiple paths to getting progressive goals in the future, not just two. If Snowe signs onto the Baucus bill, then at least we know we can pull some compromise out of her (since she has said in the past that she doesn't support the bill). And there are enough progressives who do not support the Baucus bill to ensure that it will not stand without modifications.
The last few months, we have been in the posturing phase for all parties. Now is when it gets real, deals are made, and compromises are pushed through.
September 17, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Has anyone researched the implications of the McCarren Ferguson Act of 1945, with its anti-trust exception for health insurance companies? Would this not be a viable option to either have it repealed and/or modified, hence allowing greater competition in the market-place overall?
Just a thought...
Respectfully,
Don JD
September 17, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite its labyrinthian complexity, how big a deal is this really?
1. Is something sensible like the Canadian or European systems, aka "real" health care reform even on the horizon?
2. Is some slightly better than token reform (Scenario 1) not still an improvement on no reform at all?
3. Scenario 2 would require some modest degree of evolution of the species Democrat towards the Phylum Chordata where the species Republican is already classified. But, given the state of political health in America, and the limited stakes (see point 1 above), is this the best moment to invest the entire political capital budget for Congressional spinal transplants?
September 18, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What disappoints me with the Dems is that they let the fascist rich peoples party - repubs- vote for tax cuts for rich assholes with reconciliation but the Dems are afraid to vote for healthcare for average people with reconciliation. What a bunch of chickenshits. For Christ's sake if you can spend more than a trillion dollars on a Chinese credit card for rich fuckers to get richer why on Earth can you not pass a budget neutral healthcare plan to literally save the lives of how many tens of thousands of average working Americans??? If the right wing Supreme Court can appoint a fucking idiot to the Presidency when he got half a million less votes than the other guy why the fucking hell can't the Dems vote a healthcare plan with a 51 vote majority???
THIS DEMOCRACY SUCKS!!!
September 18, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't understand you. Can there ever be a more heroic figure than a"progressive democrat"?
Every day they go to work, knowing that people are mad as hell at them, people promising them that the last elections was the last time they voted D, that the last bill they supported in Congress was the last straw. And they keep going, and keep ignoring these angry losers, and they vote their own pocket and trust God in heaven to somehow save them in the next elections.
How much courage, how much fortitude, what balls of steal do these people have, to know they need our support to get elected and yet to piss in our faces and laugh us off?
I support the Democratic party, now and forever, because I admire their Churchillian steadfastness.
September 18, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Is something sensible like the Canadian or European systems, aka "real" health care reform even on the horizon?
No. I favor a single payer system but it wouldn't get ten votes in the Senate and the chance of that increasing significantly in the next several Senate elections is nonexistent.
2. Is some slightly better than token reform (Scenario 1) not still an improvement on no reform at all?
I think so
September 18, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Reich's analysis. However, the optics of the Baucus bill are horrible. Instituting a mandate to buy insurance without cost containment is political folly. If insurance rates continue to rise and everyone is required to buy insurance then we will have a lot of pissed off folks, myself included.
I have told my Dem rep that I will not vote for him next time without a public option which at best will promote at least some competition. I am usually not this adamant about such threats and I generally hate single issue politics. In this case the issue is so overwhelmingly important, I feel I have been backed into this corner by the awful results which have come out of the Senate Finance Committee.
September 18, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most important factor none of these posts, including Mr. Reich's, take into account is that it's not the Bachus Bill which will be passed on to the Senate.
Next week, the bill goes to markup. "Liberal" Rockefeller and MANY (actual) Democrats on the panel are champing at the bit to introduce amendments to reduce the stench of the Maxie and Kent clown show. I have every hope that the amendment process will easily kill any chance of Maine's Dimmest Light to "find it acceptable" to her incomprehensible judgment.
By the way, WHERE THE HELL IS JEFF BINGAMAN? Did he deposit any of his flavored feces into this mess? He HAS given tentative support to the current sewage. Did he actually attend all the meetings?
Oh! And please tell me again, why (now) 5 people who represent less than 5% of the American populace are the deciders?
September 18, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
1.) I second the request by Elizabeth2 for a point of clarification. How does the reconciliation process work? And where did it come from?
2.)KeithL, perhaps the Dems who markup the Baucus plan will respond constructively to it, and produce a version that is acceptable to progressives as well as to Sen. Snowe. That's how democracy works.
September 18, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This analysis by Reich directly contradicts some of the information that I've been hearing about conciliation coming from reports on TPM. Specifically by Harry Reid (who is a questionable source I know) claiming that reconciliation would only be able to produce a bill 1/3 as good as one passed with 60 votes. Now I realize that Reid is a pussy that is always trying to rationalize his poor leadership so of course whatever he said can't be taken at face value.
But at the same time it's hard to write off any validity to his claim for it not to have been laughed off the planet by other more liberal legislators, Howard Dean and co, etc.
So I'm curious as to the specifically what in reconciliation Reid was referring to. Anyone know?
September 18, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say that if she votes against the Baucus bill, that changes everything because it will allow for a more progressive bill to come forth.
By "progressive" you mean unconstitutional. Seriously, people, only Democrats would be misguided enough to think that employer mandates and individual compulsion (with the threat of appreciable fines for anyone who fails to sign up for insurance) is a proper course of action.
Have any of you stopped for one second to ponder the consequences if the Democrats pass partisan health care reform? That will be a hell of a dangerous precedent. Not even George W. Bush tried to cram through any piece of legislation nearly this big (or drastic) when he had an undivided government after the mid-terms of '02.
You can rest assured that if a partisan reform package is passed and signed into law, there will be hell to pay when the Republicans return to power in Washington. The blowback will be tremendous and the GOP will do everything they can to pass as much sweeping conservative legislation as they can without having to engage the Democrats.
Like I said, it's a hell of a dangerous precedent. It may very well usher in an era in which each party, instead of seeking middle ground or compromise, does everything it can to NOT work with the other party.
Do you really want that? Seriously?
You know how stubborn, unreasonable, and archaic the Republicans can be when they want to. Do you really, truly want to get into a pissing contest with them? Can you imagine the consequences when the day comes when they return to power in this country? They will point to this moment as their rallying cry. Instead of "Remember the Alamo" it'll be "Remember Pelosi!"
September 19, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Like I said, it's a hell of a dangerous precedent. It may very well usher in an era in which each party, instead of seeking middle ground or compromise, does everything it can to NOT work with the other party."
What planet have you been spending your time on for the last 15 years?
September 19, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg! What planet indeed!
The Repubs and Bush gave us the god damned Iraq War that will cost us way more than a trillion dollars and told us it would pay for itself with oil money ..... the fuckers also gave their rich friends a trillion dollar plus tax cut without offsetting a dime of it. The tax cuts are borrowed from the Chinese and we will be paying them off with interest for the rest of our lives!
And here you don't want to do anything drastic or expensive or partisan to piss them off because maybe they won't play nice sometime in the future!?!
WAKE THE FUCK UP! You have been beaten and raped and left for dead at the side of the road and you still just want to be friends?
September 19, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
hollywood:
You have to remember that dozens upon dozens of DEMOCRATS voted in favor of the Iraq War. It matters little that the justifications for that war were either false or fabricated because many of the Democrats that voted against it, like Obama, have consistently said they were never fooled by the Bush administration.
The health care debate is different. We are talking about a trillion dollar plan that may not get the support of one single Republican. Bush and Co. never even came close to crossing into that territory. Even the tax cuts that you mention had some nominal support from a few outlying Democrats.
Oh, and one other thing. Why is that whenever somebody questions anything that Obama does, they have to mention George W. Bush? It happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Nobody is doubting Bush was a bad president. Similarly, nobody is saying his party didn't try to eschew the Democrats whenever possible. But Obama promised during his campaign that he would end that kind of partisan nonsense and would reach across the aisle. So far the exact opposite has happened. Granted, Obama can't control the actions of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, both of whom have no interest at all in working with the GOP on anything for any reason. But for Obama's campaign of "Change" to become something more than a convenient pipe dream, he's going to have to show me something that Bush didn't.
It's something called Leadership.
September 20, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No republican will vote for health care reform. Period. They don't want to give Democrats that victory, and so they will do whatever it takes to kill reform. If they cared about health care, they could have tried to reform it when they had power but they didn't.
So your suggestion is to forget about it because the minority party hates health care reform? So, we should search for an issue that the republicans will vote for? Sorry. The only thing I can think of is to declare another war somewhere -- as much as they would LOVE it, I just don't think nuking Iran is the best way to make friends with our republican adversaries; the price is just too damned high. I think that letting the inmates rule the asylum is not the way to go.
After all, why isn't anyone encouraging the republicans to stop being the Party of No, for the good of the country? So, I think we should pass on your advice, and just try to do the right thing for our country, and get universal health care under way.
Thanks, but no thanks, Gettysburg
September 20, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem
I do think the Democrats will do what you say, but it's something that everyone will regret one day. Not the reform itself, but the manner in which that reform is attained.
Again, the health care part of it is important, but there is a bigger picture in play here. It's the precedent that I'm worried about.
Nobody is questioning the fact that the Republicans tried to sidestep the Democrats when they were in power a few years ago. But neither the Iraq War vote (which had a lot of support from the left) nor the tax cuts (which are not permanent)even approach the significance of health care reform.
Obama has already succeeded at bringing the health care debate front and center. At this point it's not a question of whether or not there will be reform, but a question of what kind. Even the Republicans know this. Like you said, they've deliberately ignored this issue forever, but that's not an option now and we HAVE seen them try to engage.
John Boehner said last week that the Republicans have actually offered 35 different health care proposals, all of which have been rejected or ignored by the president. To add, the public option was the one aspect of the reform that all Republicans were opposed to and it now appears that there will be no such option (at least not if the Baucus Plan is adopted).
It's easy to point to the Republicans and say they have no interest in participating in the health care debate and only wish to kill any and all reform.
But that's not true. The public option which they so opposed is already off the table. In reality, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have no interest in attaining any Republican support. That's why any focus on gaining even 1 or 2 Republican votes has fallen to Max Baucus and Max Baucus alone. You don't hear Pelosi or Reid trying to form any kind of coalition.
But let me ask you a serious question.
If the Democrats go through with their threat of passing partisan legislation without any Republican support, do you not think the Republicans will remember that whenever they return to power? Do you think they won't try to pull the same kind of crap?
They'll certainly have justification due to the precedent that might be set in the next couple months.
September 20, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let me ask you a serious question. How could the republicans be any worse than they are now, considering that they vote en masse -- NO -- which is something the Democrats have never done? How have the republicans paid us back for our so-called "good" behavior in backing bills from Bush that were not really Democratic-type legislation? Democrats - mistakenly - in my opinion, voted in order to preserve the theme of bipartisanship and where has it gotten us?
Republicans could do no worse than they are now, so any attempt at appeasing them is just being suckered. What is their "justification" for voting "no" on every single bill proposed so far? They don't need justification - they are just the Party of NO.
And if they DO get back in power, our country is fucked anyway.
September 20, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the Supreme Court weighs in and says that the individual mandate is not consistent with the Constitution
September 19, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously think the Republicans will never get back into power???
You know it's going to happen. And sooner rather than later.
Harry Reid is likely going to lose his election next year and the GOP, in general, stand to gain in both houses of Congress. I cannot envision a scenario in which they take control of either (at least not in 2010), but the gap will be significantly narrowed.
The Democrats are already losing steam due to this health care debate and the Afghanistan situation will almost surely lead to a huge party divide in the next few months. Obama is going to have to send tens of thousands of additional troops to the region and that will cause Nancy Pelosi to piss blood.
The alternative would be to not send any more troops, or to send far fewer than commander's ask for. That would feed fuel to the GOP who will stop at nothing to paint the picture of Obama not being tough enough and not doing a good enough job of protecting the party.
So either way Obama will be painted as a eunuch by the GOP or will cause a schism with his own party.
I'm not saying these are good things, but I can't see how it'll be avoided.
As to the health care debate, I think it takes two to tango. Baucus did leave out the public option in his proposal, but overall size, scope, and cost of the measure is a huge concern to Republicans. The GOP is more in favor of implementing stricter industry regulations whereas the Dems want a more drastic re-writing of the entire program.
September 21, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink