Yow, did someone put vinegar instead of milk in your corn flakes this morning?
In any case, thank you for relating that Pelosi has whipped the caucus and come up short. I’ve been out of the country for two weeks and missed that story.
I suppose if Pelosi says she doesn’t have the votes, and there now appears to be 41 votes against pretty much any health care reform in the Senate, I suppose congressional leaders should just give up and stop trying to round up votes.
Or, we could send in Helen Hunt and some oil and try to round up enough votes in the House for the Senate bill.
Funny that with only one or two Republicans willing to vote yes, and the vast majority of Democrats supporting it, and with only 40 Republicans needed to filibuster, that you try and draw a moral equivalence.
48% of MA voters said healthcare was important in their vote. Since MA currently has a state version of UHC perhaps we should pay attention to what they think.
What % said they were happy with the system in MA. I think a lot of people soured on the back-door deals that went down when the Senate plan passed. It’s not a coincidence that Bronw’s polling numbers really jumped at that time.
Wouldn’t that include both people voting for the Republican because they don’t like the plan and people voting for the Democrat because they do like it? Simply saying that it was important in their vote tells us nothing.
Yes, of course. But it is interesting that such a large percent considered it the #1 issue (56% according to this link: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60139) and the Democrat lost. Coakley had a slight edge in terms of who voters thought was better able to handle the issue but even this is surprising in MA.
The question is, would Pelosi have the votes if 50 Senate Dems agreed to vote for a package of House amendments to the Senate bill via reconciliation? And would it be possible to round up those 50 Senate Dems?
I think they’re starting to get clued in that it’s one thing to spend most of a year coming up with a health care reform bill that has some real problems, but also does a lot of good (e.g. no more problems with pre-existing conditions) - but it’s a far more dangerous thing for them this November to come up with nothing after all that.
That still doesn’t mean they’ll actually get their act together and pass a health care bill. I think the odds are still well against it. But they’re at least motivated to try.
I have been led to believe that reconciliation is not possible for health care reform because of the Byrd Rule. Extraneous matter that does not have direct effect on the budget cannot be included in reconciliation matters, and seeing as how any health care bill is going to be laden with changes in law that are not principally budgetary items, including things like new laws on pre-existing conditions or establishing a new agency to oversee the reforms, any item like that would not be protected from filibuster.
If you can provide a knowledgeable citation that I am wrong, I would be interested to read it.
The authoritative answer is, it depends. There are parts of healthcare reform that would fit with the Byrd rule, basically anything that can be shown to have an effect on the budget or deficit. But there are large parts that would not make it past, like not allowing pre-existing conditions to prevent insurance coverage.
The idea is to pass the current Senate bill, which covers things that can’t go through reconciliation, then use reconciliation on the stuff they can, like what level of taxes to place on which Cadillac insurance plans, to improve the end result.
Yeah, on the one hand, he is right they have until the end of this congress to pass it, OTOH, the more they ignore it, the more they will want to keep doing so. And the harder it will be to convince anyone running for office this year (i.e., the entire House) that voting for it is a good idea.
I read that quote in the paper today, and almost didn’t believe it. Health care? That is sooooo 2009, dude!!
Pelosi was more upbeat today. I’ve heard she’s using her “we don’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill” as a negotiating tool. But unless she’s negotiating some else along with that bill, I don’t see what there would be to negotiate about. You either vote for the bill as is, or you don’t.
I think they’re trying to get the Senate to commit to passing some fixes via reconciliation before the House commits to voting for the Senate bill. So she’s negotiating with the Senate.
I suspect that will be the final result, there isn’t really any other believable route to getting this done, and scared or not, I don’t think the Dems will be willing to walk away from something they’ve burnt so much time and political capital on.
Plus, it could be done relatively quickly, since I also can’t imagine they want this thing hanging over their heads in limbo for the next 9 months.
The smart ones don’t want it hanging there, the question is, how many are smart enough to realize that and not too scared to have a vote for it on their voting record.
There are parts of healthcare reform that would fit with the Byrd rule, basically anything that can be shown to have an effect on the budget or deficit. But there are large parts that would not make it past, like not allowing pre-existing conditions to prevent insurance coverage.