home

If The House Votes For The Stand Alone Senate Health Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:57:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If and when the House votes for the Stand Alone Senate bill, and as what seems at least a strong possibility, the Senate reneges on a reconciliation bill, House Dems will have to explain why they voted for:

(a) The Cornhusker Kickback;

(b)the Louisiana Purchase: and

(c) the excise tax.

They'll get to explain to their progressive base how they got the public option, Medicare buy-in, better affordability credits, um, how they got . . . nothing. Good luck with that in November House Dems.

Speaking for me only

< PA-Sen: Specter Leads Toomey In Latest Q-Poll | Tuesday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    If The House Votes For The Stand Alone Senate Health Bill | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    How's this for commitment from (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    the Senate:

    If it does act first, the only reassurance the House would get is Harry Reid's personal vow:

    As part of this step, there are reports that House leaders want to see a letter signed by at least 50 Senate Democrats committing to passing tweaks to the Senate bill worked out between the two chambers, but a Democratic policy consultant says such a letter is unlikely to transpire. More likely, the source said, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would privately vow to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that he has the votes. link

    If I were a Dem House member, I would be more than skeptical if they can not even get a letter of commitment from 50 Dem Senators.  

    Progressives will get nothing (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    and Republicans will get four more provisions and still not vote for it.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama said Tuesday he was open to four new Republican proposals on health care legislation, in a gesture of bipartisanship meant to jump-start his stalled drive to overhaul the system. link
    Let's re-write that a bit: (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    President Barack Obama said Tuesday he was open to four new Republican proposals on health care legislation, in a gesture of bipartisanship meant to signal that total capitulation is at hand;  Republicans will soon have the health care bill they want without ever having to vote for it, and can then prepare to usher in the Reagan Revolution Redux as Democrat after Democrat goes down to defeat in November.

    There - that seems a little more reflective of reality.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    That is the reality I see.

    Parent
    That was pretty much my conclusion as well (none / 0) (#27)
    by Romberry on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 01:24:26 AM EST
    If Democrats pass this type of health care "reform", Republicans get a bill that is essentially Republican at its core, and Democrats take the blame. How much better does it get than that in politics?

    Obama isn't giving away anything he doesn't want to give away. This bill is a reflection of the values of our Democratic leadership. Their values are conservative Republican. They are to the right of Dick Nixon.

    Parent

    If only we had a Democratic President... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 11:29:16 PM EST
    ... and a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate! Oh, wait...

    Parent
    ah, but at least our fearless leader (none / 0) (#4)
    by Nathan In Nola on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:32:44 PM EST
    will be able to say that he passed healthcare reform!

    i am going to be sick.

    Parent

    charlie cook (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    says we're going to lose the house. this would ensure it.

    Good for Obama. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by observed on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:12:06 PM EST
    Mission accomplished. Chicago Skool Roolz!

    Parent
    Great News For Obama. It makes it easier to win in (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    2012 by running against the Republican controlled Congress.

    Parent
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:40:15 PM EST
    Particularly since he seems to enjoy working in tandem with the GOP more than his own party.

    Parent
    He does enjoy working with his own (none / 0) (#18)
    by observed on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:46:58 PM EST
    party---duh.


    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    His actual party is the Democratic party and the idea that he'd be a foil or a check ceases to exist if you base your vote on his actions. Conciliation isn't being a foil. Duh.

    Frankly, if I'm going to have someone rubber stamping the Republicans ideas I'd just as well prefer it to be one of their own. Then I don't have to hear the fake kabuki about how the GOP folks are being conciliatory towards liberal ideas.

    Parent

    Obama will have his version of bipartisanship (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    without the smoke and mirrors. The Republicans will write the bills, pass them with Democratic support and Obama will sign them.

    Parent
    Barack and the Beanstalk. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 08:07:07 PM EST
    Bipartisan Beans.

    Parent
    Well, if the Democrats lose the House, it (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by observed on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 06:14:00 PM EST
    will be yet another opportunity for Obama to scold Dems for being too partisan.

    Parent
    Are they deaf? (none / 0) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:41:40 AM EST
    It will be blamed on the radical left wing of the party that fails to realize that this is a gun toting, God fearing, conservative country! (snark)

    I guess all those Democratic votes in 2008 were really a message to continue the status quo. Silly me. I thought that people had decided that the Republican direction was wrong.

    I just don't understand where these people are getting their advice from.

    Parent

    They get their advice from Republicans. (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:20:28 AM EST


    Parent
    And why not lose it, since that's what was bet (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ellie on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    Not a good day for progress when the braintrust can't even see its way to demand the three-(magic)bean minimum.

    Parent
    From what I've (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    read Cook is predicting a literal bloodbath of 60+ house seats lost. You're right about this bill. It could push the losses up to 70 seats even.

    Parent
    Did we ever really have it? (none / 0) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:11:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey, you know about Obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    and nuclear disarmament... there was no way he would ever back reconciliation.

    Parent
    they would be idiots (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    to move first on passing the Senate bill. I would put the odds of a reconciliation fix happening at 20 percent in that case.

    I think conservative Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by esmense on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    might prefer that their party not have the majority. When you haven't a clue about how to solve the serious problems the nation faces, it must seem so much easier, safer, and more fun, to just be able to collect the checks and blame the other guys.

    They most likely calculate that if "reform" ends up not satisfying progressive voters, it will be progressive legislators who suffer, not them.

    Barack and the Beanstalk! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    Except there's no giant to steal the goose from or gold etc...

    Obama just sold the cow for some beans.

    I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:10:09 PM EST
    How many of the hordes of "D" Reps heading for the guillotine this November will be reflecting fondly on how they gamed the primaries for "anyone but HER!"

    She sensibly went into foreign policy (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:16:34 PM EST
    Which has been working well.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:27:51 PM EST
    because being imcompetent enough to lose despite massive fundraising and name recognition edges really shows that she would have been anywhere near as good as Obama has been.

    Parent
    The ability (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    To think cognitively separates humans from the rest of the animal world.

    Contemplate that before making ridiculous statements.....as if running a slick campaign (with the assistance of the entire MSM, The Republican Party, The Democratic Party, and every misogynist and sexist slug breathing our air) and LEGISLATING are one and the same.


    Parent

    Don't forget the Gatoraide. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 04:49:48 PM EST


    progresive base? (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    The reps who are worried about the progressive base have safe seats and don't need the base.  A Democratic rep in a red seat doesn't exactly need (or want) the active support of anyone's progressive base.  If the progressive base can somehow beat a red district consservative Dem rep in a primary, then that's another seat gone Republican.

    We cheat ourselves (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:56:26 AM EST
    By running Republicans as Democrats in these districts we're short changing our party. Make the people decide if they really want the Republican philosphy of governing or not. I still think we would be better off with a clear distinction.

    It's easy to forget, but we saw what Republican leadership did to the country. I think we need to remind people of that. Tax cuts, deregulation, and spending got us where we are and it was done by the Republican leadership

    Parent

    If The House Votes For The Stand Alone Senate Health Bill | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment