Jane Hamsher is right. And she deserves a ton of credit for her organizing and indefatigable energy. She has obtained the pledges of enough House Democrats to assure that the House cannot pass a health care reform bill that doesn’t contain a public option. I am pretty confident that those pledges will hold through the first round of voting. What this means is that Hamsher has come close to guaranteeing that Pelosi and Hoyer will have to introduce a bill that has a public option and then protect against all amendments to strip it out. So, that’s good. That was job one, and I think we can get such a bill passed.
It won’t be easy, though. Many Blue Dogs will have a problem voting for the bill for one of two reasons. Some are just opposed to the public option. Others don’t want to vote for it when they expect it to be stripped out in the Conference Committee with the Senate. They might be willing to vote for it if it were actually going to become law because then people might actually use it and like it. But if it just a ‘left-wing’ vote for ‘socialism’ that won’t ever benefit their constituents, then they are going to be very reluctant to go along. What you should expect, then, is that the bill will pass with the minimum of votes to ‘protect’ as many vulnerable members as possible.
Once that happens, though, the bill will go to the Conference Committee and be merged with a Senate bill that has no provision for a public option. Here is where the conferees will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they include a public option, the motion to proceed to a vote on the bill in the Senate will be filibustered by several Democrats. If they don’t include a public option, Hamsher’s pledgees will be obligated to vote against the Conference Report.
This is a classic Catch-22, and the most likely outcome is that the bill will have to put off for budget reconciliation in the fall.
That outcome is what I’ve been predicting for a while, but it’s hard to know how it is going to look as it unfolds. On the other hand, it’s possible that Hamsher’s pledgees (or some subset of them) will only feel obligated to keep their promise on the first bill, but will consider voting for the Conference Report to avoid having Obama fail at enacting health care through the normal process.
Should be interesting.
I agree. She and her people have done yeoman work in this effort.
That’s exactly what Howard Dean says – who’s the strongest and most reasonable voice the Democrats have on most subjects. This is going to reconciliation on October 16.
So let the Republicans think they’re winning something by unleashing the crazies. Makes them feel good. Fifty votes means we don’t need a single one of them or the Blue Dogs or even Olympia Snowe.
We don’t even know how this will work. Under reconciliation the plan could still be watered down. Also, the parliamentarian will have a lot of influence over what parts of the bill will remain.
We’ll have to be satisfied with whatever we can get by going that route.
god bless jane hamsher.
Are you sure re-conciliated bills can be filibustered? .. Meaning the votes after conference
yes. From ,Kagro X, back in February.
It isn’t so hard to flip a few senators compared to flipping a hundred House reps.. And Rep. Weiner seems to think there a hundred House reps…
You know all these talking heads covering the chaos at town hall meetings, the craziness on tv, the columnists and reporters writing about it all?
Guess what?
They all have wonderful health insurance coverage.
They have no dog in this fight.
They do not feel what those with no coverage feel.
Or those with pre-existing conditions who cannot obtain coverage feel. Or that single 59 year old taking lipitor who pays $16,000 a year to have individual health insurance. Or the cancer victim whose coverage is canceled.
They are bystanders. Witnesses. Most probably thinking and feeling one thing: Do not mess with my coverage.
And that folks, is why the media coverage of all the lies, chaos at town hall meetings, deception, distortions, falsity, outright fraud, is treated without much concern. Deep down these media people are thinking maybe we are just better off with the status quo.
How different would the media coverage be if those covering it all were uninsurable, under-insured, could not afford coverage, just had thier coverage canceled, or were paying $16,000 per year out of pocket?
It’s all very simple to see. In the media, self interest trumps truth.
It is not a good thing to box House members into a position where they can only support a final bill with a public option, unless one believes that a bill without a public option is worse than nothing.
I believe that half a loaf – or even 1/4 of a loaf – is considerably better than nothing. And I can think of nothing worse – politically and substantively – than a situation where a final bill, whatever its form, is defeated by virtue of the progressive bloc.
Same stuff from Jane that she pulled on the war supplemental. I’m sure it’s great for fund raising. As to it’s efficacy in pushing policy ….um, yeah… I’m gonna have to get back to you on that.
this is serious.
a bill without a public option is not a bill worth having.
yes, this is the line in the sand.
this is too important.
and, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the President having a ‘signing ceremony’…fuck him, Rahm and anyone else who thinks that people are playing around with this healthcare issue.