I remain all but certain that comprehensive healthcare reform legislation will pass this spring. The New York Times isn’t sure, but Nancy Pelosi is. My money is on Pelosi. “Every legislative vote is a heavy lift around here,” she told reporters earlier today. “You assume nothing." But she added, "We will pass a bill." I agree. The process will be ugly, but they will get it done.
Unless the president and Pelosi have signed a secret political suicide pact, they wouldn’t be doing this unless they were quite sure they could pull it off.
Most of the press is more skeptical than I am. But I’ve been a journalist long enough to know that you don't sell many newspapers with a headline that reads: “Game Over.” Uncertainty is far more interesting; the media will do its best to keep the suspense alive to the very end.
Maggie,
I hope you’re right but how do you see the abortion issue being resolved in the House in order to get the votes to pass the Senate bill? As I understand it, since abortion relates more to social policy than to federal budget impact, it is not a germane matter to be considered under reconciliation in the Senate. Thus, the Senate bill abortion language cannot be altered unless there are at least 60 votes to do so. No?
Seems to me that if you want to add more conservative abortion language you can do it in an add-on bill. Would Republicans have the nerve to filibuster a bill that’s more restrictive of abortion rights just to spite healthcare reform? I don’t know, but it would be funny to watch them try!
Barry–
Pelosi (and the White House) saw the abortion problem coming.
So when they decided to go ahead, they must have felt pretty confident that they could solve it.
See this opinion piece in today’s Washington Post suggesting one way that it might be resolved: “How Pelosi will game the Stupak 12”
By Marc A. Thiessen
The truth is that the current legislation doesn’t change current law about federal funding of abortion, and of course abortion is a separate issue–shouldn’t be part of the debate over health care reform.
Maggie,
I am concerned about what Thiessen wrote regarding the Stupak Amendment, that reconciliation could be dead and that the House could simply pass the Senate bill. While the Senate’s language is better on abortion than the House bill, if the House simply passes the Senate’s bill with no reconciliation in, addition to weakening the Stupak Amendment it would also kill President Obama’s proposal to regulate the insurance corporations and their pricing. Also the Vice President actually has the power to rule filibusters and the holds that the Repugs place out of order. Your comments on all of this?
Walter-
I thought the Thiessen piece was extremely interesting– and illustrated just how many options they have.
I’m not at all sure which strategy refomers will pursue– just convinced that they have thought about all of the obstacles, and will get it done.
Also, even if they lose a piece of it in reconicliation (say, regulation of insurers’ pricing) they have 3 more years to pass that piece as separate legisalton.
Already, there is much talk of passing the public option at a later point, as a separate bill. Today, Obama told House liberals that he will do his best to do just that.
(And, if the Democrats manage to re-gain whatever votes they lose in Congress this fall, I suspect they will do just that. The public option has been very popular among voters . . )
Anyone who thought that we would be able to overhaul a $2.6 trillion industry with one bill . . .just wasn’t thinking.
That’s one reason why they’re not trying to roll it out until 2014. Much to be done between now and then.
Maggie,
This sounds encouraging. There is also Dennis Kucinich. He voted against the bill when it passed the House the last time, because it didn’t allow states to set up single payer systems. In view that the lone Republican Cao(sp?) from New Orleans will vote No this time and of the death of John Murtha, Kucinich’s vote could very well make the difference on passage of this bill. I’m sure that there will be enormous pressure on him. I wrote him and told him that if Senator Bernie Sanders who is a socialist can vote for the bill, so can he.
2.3 trillion in additonal costs, which slams medicare and does nothing to reduce costs; and we call this “right” for the country. Mondieu! See Ryan’s response to Obama to get the facts on this catastrophic legislation.
Despite the opposition from the American public, I’ve no doubt they will Rahm through Obamacare. Be careful what you wish for.
One tactic that Obama can use to get Democratic members of Congress who are on the fence to vote for the bill, is to use “sweeteners” that would be outside the bill. Click on this link and scroll down http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/dems-begin-uphill-campaig_n_487285.htm
Regarding my last comment about Obama using “sweeteners” outside the bill to get wavering Democratic members of Congress to vote for it, the link doesn’t seem to work. Try this. I hope this works http://tinyurl.com/yen9g6o
Walter, Hoyt, Doc 99
Walter
You said: “Kucinich’s vote could very well make the difference on passage of this bill. I’m sure that there will be enormous pressure on him. I wrote him and told him that if Senator Bernie Sanders who is a socialist can vote for the bill, so can he.”
Well-put! and I agree.
Hoyt– You write: “2.3 trillion in additonal costs, which slams medicare and does nothing to reduce costs; and we call this “right” for the country.”
I’m writing a post about how the legislation does control costs and how the Meciare cuts will, in fact, lift quality, right now.
If it’s not posted this week-end, it will be up Monday.
Please check it out and let me know what you think.
Doc 99–
We’ll have to see how it works out.
But I can’t help for wish for 30 million Americans having access to care– many of them children.
And I can’t help but hope for the part of the legislation that says that insurers will not be able to deny coverage for kids with pre-existing conditions –starting immediately.
Everybody loves to blame “the left” and Kucinich, but we on the left never actually killed anything. As usual it will be the right that kills this if it dies… a combination of corporate conservadems (aka: blue dogs and NDC) and theocrats (anti-abortion).
DrSteveB wrote: “Everybody loves to blame “the left” and Kucinich, but we on the left never actually killed anything. As usual it will be the right that kills this if it dies… a combination of corporate conservadems (aka: blue dogs and NDC) and theocrats (anti-abortion).”
If you’re referring to what I said, I’m certainly not blaming the left for killing the bill. There’s no question that Obama failed to fight for a stronger bill with the public option and I blame the same people you do. Now, 2 House members on the left, Kucinich and Eric Massa who announced his resignation on Friday, voted No the last time but the bill passed with 2 votes to spare. All of the other progressive members of Congress voted FOR the bill. So I hope that when the bill comes up the next time, that Kucinich will vote for the bill if his vote will be a deciding factor.
Dr. Steve B & Walter
Dr. Steve B–
You’re right: the left hasn’t killed anything. Some bloggers on the left urged liberals to vote against the bills but they passed both House and Senate.
There continues to be fear in some quarters that liberals will vote no, and block passage in this final vote. I doubt it.
It think the right- to-life
folks, and some blue dogs will be a problem–and of course the Republicans will do their best to slow things down.
But in the end, I think Pelosi and Obama will gather the votes. If K is needed, I assume he will come through.
On the public option– Obama is telling liberals that he will work hard to pass it as separate legislation. He has until 2014 to do this. It could even be done later, but I think they’ll manage to pass it before 2014–unless the Dems lose control of Congress for the next 3 years.
I doubt they will. They’ll lose votes to Republicans this fall, but may also gain some more liberal Dems (Maybe even a moderate Republican or two will turn up. Republican voters are getting tired of the extreme hard-liners.)
Walter– thanks for the comment. I agree. See what I wrote to Dr. Steve B above about the public option.
Maggie Mahar wrote “I think they’ll manage to pass it before 2014–unless the Dems lose control of Congress for the next 3 years.
I doubt they will. They’ll lose votes to Republicans this fall, but may also gain some more liberal Dems (Maybe even a moderate Republican or two will turn up. Republican voters are getting tired of the extreme hard-liners.)”
Maggie, I feel very encouraged by your optimism. If the Dems lose some seats this November which is likely, it might be the stragglers or blue dogs that will be defeated. Hopefully a liberal majority of Senate Dems will then get rid of the filibuster, which will end up helping Obama and the Dems to actually pass some good legislation. While there are Repugs who are tired of the extreme right-wing hardliners, it’s those right-wingers who control the Repug primaries. If the Dems over the next few years pass health care with the public option and other good bills without the Repugs, the Repugs being so far to the right could become a permanent minor party.
Walter–
I am optimistic because I think that, as a country, we’ve reached a turning point.
Recent events have made it clear to many people that we do need government regulation and government help–especially in the face of such high unemployment.
At the same time, the demographics of the country are changing which means that we may see new candidates with new ideas. Now that we have an African-American president, I would expect to see more African-Americans and Latinos run for Congress. Nancy Pelosi’s high visibility–and great competence– may bring more women into politics. (The fact that Hillary came close to winning the presidential nomination also signals that what seemed impossible 20 years ago is now possible.)
You make a good point about the conservative hard-liners controlling the Republican primaries.
Even if Republican voters are getting tired of the hard-liners, it will be hard for a moderate Republican to win the party’s nomination. Though perhaps moderate REpublicans will begin to run as Independents. (Depending on how moderate they are, they might take votes away from liberals–or they might take votes away from conservatives.)
Bottom line, as you suggest, insofar as die-hard conservative Republicans retain control of the part, they could turn it into a minority party.
Meanwhile, at the liberal end of the specutrum, I’m hoping that more and more liberals will come out and vote (including minorities who didn’t vote in large numbers in the past).
But the Democrats are going to have to do some hard work if they want to bring those voters out in Congressional elections. (This is the work they didn’t do in the recent election in Ct. Liberals didn’t like either candidate and stayed home.)
Maggie, Agreed!!!
Very useful post and comments, as usual. Nice to see SteveB here on HealthBeat.
I live in MA and wonder if Maggie’s most recent comment that says “Ct” meant to say “MA”, or did something take place in CT that I missed?
I’m referring to this: “But the Democrats are going to have to do some hard work if they want to bring those voters out in Congressional elections. (This is the work they didn’t do in the recent election in Ct. Liberals didn’t like either candidate and stayed home.)
I think the recent MA Senate election went to Scott Brown b/c many liberals did indeed stay home, b/c VERY large sums of out-of-state money poured in for Brown in the last month allowing him to spread his rhetoric widely, and b/c the complexities of health reform are, unfortunately, perfect fodder for fear-mongering.
It’s worth noting that over the past 20 years, including 2 years ago, Massachusetts voters in all parts of the state have shown strong majority support for an improved Medicare-for-All approach to reform when that choice has been put before them on ballot initiatives.
Ann–
Good to hear from you.
And yes, I meant “Mass, not Ct.
Interesting to hear that out of state money poured in to help Brown. That makes sense.
Walter–Thanks!