Something goes wrong again ... and again and again

With the federal budget rollout, a jobs bill and action on financial regulation on the near-term docket in Congress, what's to happen with health care?

Both houses have passed a bill. Relatively minor differences could be worked out. What's the delay? Are the Democrats playing dead for now, only to (improbably) pick up HCR down the road, as Rahm Emanuel suggests?

Jonathan Chait details why such a strategy would be beyond disaster for Democrats:

Suppose there's no upside at all to passing health care reform. McArdle assumes, without explicating her reasons, that walking away from the issue is a way for Democrats to cut their losses. Why, though, would that be the case? Passing the bill may or may not make it more popular, letting it die is surely going to make it less popular. If the bill dies, then it's the subject of lengthy, painful postmortem coverage detailing its flaws and mistakes. It becomes the symbol of big government run amok, and the 60 Senate Democrats and 220 House Democrats who voted for it will suffer politically all the more. Moreover, the already-demoralized liberal base would become apoplectic with the Democratic Party. 1994 was bad, but passing a bill through both chambers then sitting by and letting it die is the kind of behavior that makes even the most pragmatic Democratic voter want to punish his own party.

In sum, I'm totally unpersuaded by the argument that Democrats will let health care die because it's in their interest to do so. It's not. It's a suicide pact, and pretty much every liberal I know -- the kinds of liberals who understand the need for compromise and running to the center -- will be there to hold the pillow over their face if they do it.

They've come this far, and forget them picking it up beyond a few months from now, when 2010 campaigning kicks into gear. Dropping everything at this point would be proof of a monumental retreat by a party that had the guns, Jan. 2009 AND now, to get this done. Abandoning this would only serve as a cudgel for Republicans to use against them. I think it would mean large GOP gains in 2010 and 2012, an albatross attached to any kind of agenda Obama would have left to enact in the next two years and a severe loss of respect and belief in Obama as a leader.

Pass it, you still have detractors, but at least you climbed the mountain and have the scars to prove it. Many with lingering consternation of what the bill means will come around when they see how moderate and pragmatic much of it is.

Stopping now, or delaying too long, is sheer lunacy.

Denigrated, disregarded and demoralized

In a particularly acerbic post (for him), Ezra Klein nails the state of the modern Democratic Party and its connection with base voters.

The loss in Massachusetts was a terrible disappointment to Democrats. But it can be explained away. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign. These things happen.

But the reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.

But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts -- even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated. What that says is crucial: Whereas the base thought it was making these hard compromises and getting up early to knock on doors because these issues are important, the party thought all that was happening because, well, it's hard to say. It was electorally convenient? People need something to do? Ted Kennedy wanted it done?

There's no Democratic leadership. They campaigned on things like health care. They spent months debating it, which ultimately became the glaring problem ... it took too long and now they're feeling the heat of that drawn-out charade. And by the way, both chambers already voted for health care!

Now they're going to pull back on health care because of Scott Brown? They still have a vast majority. The filibuster is not the end all be all of the Senate. Can you imagine George Bush-era Republicans backing down like the Democrats are, and have all year? Not that I'm endorsing Bush-era bullying, but a large electoral mandate is just that. All you need is 51 votes my friends. Democrats are so afraid of being labeled liberals that they have consistently given in to a Republican party full of conniving demagogues that are only worried about securing power rather than the monumental problems our nation faces -- ones they have a sizable claim to.

This all wouldn't be a huge deal if Democrats had any balls or coherent sense of leadership. But, alas, they are ineffectual, two-faced, sad-sack losers. One party is too stupid to lead. But the other is too gutless. I'm not sure which is more disheartening.

That is rich: Joe Lieberman edition

What a dick.

“I don’t feel like a spoiler,” Mr. Lieberman said. “I feel like somebody who has wanted to be for health care reform. We have within reach — the core parts of this bill are a historic accomplishment. I mean, think about it, 30 million people who can’t afford health insurance in our country today are going to get it under this bill. The cost curve is going to be bent down.”

We're supposed to thank Joe Lieberman for all his work on reform? Fuck that. This obstructionist, sour grapes, vain drama queen has ostensibly done more than any Republican to block true meaningful reform since he's part of the block of 60 votes that are supposedly behind reform. And he's got the balls to say he should be hailed as a positive force in this?

Basically what getting 30 million of the 45 or 47 million uninsured people under some kind of insurance means is that those 30M will HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE out of their own pocket from a private insurer. That is reform? That is the liberal answer to this colossal clusterfuck? Digby:

Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good. --- and doing it without even the cover that FDR wisely insisted upon with social security, by having it withdrawn from paychecks. People don't miss the money as much when they never see it.

And don't let anyone say there are solid reforms sprinkled throughout the Senate's proposal that will actually mean something to a decent amount of people. Why? Because the forces of Washington will water them down and eventually strip them of any substance, especially if Republicans ever have power again, which they will.

Nice work Democrats. You let the likes of Joe "Elmer Fudd" Lieberman and Ben "Ralph Wiggum" Nelson derail reform (Although that may give those vanity whores too much credit; Obama and Harry Reid have been completely ineffectual for the liberal cause). And any so-called progressive in Congress, especially the Senate, has been walked right over.

Par for the course in 2009, the year of Obama. Maybe we should all write our congressman. I wonder what they would write back?

Divas

Is there any species roaming the earth today that is more vain than a "centrist" Democratic U.S. senator?

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) announced Saturday that she would vote to begin debate on a $848 billion health-care overhaul measure, putting Democrats on a path to reach a 60-vote threshold needed to approve an initial procedural motion on the bill.

Lincoln's announcement appears to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) the final vote needed to prevent a filibuster on the test vote. Lincoln warned that she would not support the bill in a vote on final passage if it included a "robust" public health insurance option, however.

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I agree it is more important that we begin this debate to improve this health care system rather than simply drop the issue and walk away," Lincoln said, adding that Saturday's vote is "not my last or only opportunity to have an impact on health reform."

Lincoln's announcement came soon after Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) announced that she would support the motion. Landrieu also said she had not decided whether to support passing the bill in a final Senate vote.

The vote on the procedural motion, which if approved would allow the Senate to formally begin debate on the measure after it returns from a Thanksgiving recess, is set for 8 p.m. EST Saturday.

Lincoln's and Landrieu's announcements follow a similar announcement by Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) another centrist, on Friday.

So kind of you three. Thanks.

House health care bill debate

I wonder how it makes Bart Stupak feel when conservative all-star Mike Pence is openly praising him in the middle of a highly divisive, hugely important vote on health care? (On his regressive amendment on abortion in the bill.)

And Steve Benen asks, Why aren't Republicans focusing on the actual warts on this bill? Indeed. Why drone on about socialism and big government takeover? That's not really attached to reality, is it?

Giving Credit

Throughout the emotional gauntlet that is health-care reform in 2009, I have been hard on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada), and rightfully so. He never seemed ready to step up to the plate for progressives and liberals, plus he had a tough election coming soon. But he came through (it looks so far) with a opt-out public option in their version of the bill that now must be merged with the similar House bill. He deserves credit, but I certainly reserve the right to judge him again if bails on other key proposals that may yet materialize.

I've been mostly negative on him, and then with the opt-out news yesterday, I was skeptical that this was so simple all of the sudden with the Senate, House and a White House that behaved somewhat oddly this entire process (or maybe oddly as in kowtowing to industries at risk). And I was disappointed that people in some red states won't get much-needed care.

But Anonymous Liberal, who lays out perfectly the entire scenario of the next few years, and how the opt-out may work better than the all-out national option, since this will be the envy of many denied red-staters. They'll see their friends and family in other states getting care they need and at a better price.

Acknowledging that some Republican leaders and legislators that are against it will grandstand and make the argument that nothing's changed by more debt. But they're not seeing big picture. AL writes:

Indeed, it's possible (likely even) that Republicans will point to the lack of any significant premium disparity between opt-out states and public option states as evidence that the public option doesn't work (even if it is working on a national level to control prices). Fortunately, while this might score rhetoric points, it is very unlikely to lead any additional states to opt-out. Once the national public plan is up and running, state legislatures will be loathe to opt-out of it because such a move would necessarily deprive many of their citizens of their existing health insurance (which could be disastrous politically). Thus, it's a smart bet that the universe of opt-out states will only get smaller as the years go on, not bigger.

Though ideally I wouldn't have to be surprised, I'll give credit to the White House and Congressional Democratic leadership. Maybe this is the right strategy, at the end at least. The first several months weren't just uncoordinated, they were models in cluelessness it seemed. Again, more details will come out, and there will be more battles to spin, but this feels nice right now ... just being in this moment and knowing those initial care assurances will be available for most, and hopefully soon all, Americans.

Details, details, details

Jane Hamsher agrees: The devil is in the details. She reminds us what is still at stake:

The good news: Pressure on Reid from progressives when his poll numbers are flagging made him defy the White House. More importantly, he ratted them out to the press. Rahm thought he could continue to push for triggers in the background and satisfy the base by mouthing gibberish about “the President supports a public option” until it was too late. It didn’t work out so well.

The bad news: Having a state opt-out that will make corporatist Democrats happy is quite likely not to be “available nationwide from day one,” and thus does not meet the the definition of a “robust public option” by anyone’s terms.

Regardless of what kind of opt out Reid selects, many people will be refused a chance at the option. Opt out by a governor? State legislature? Both? (Jane has all the numbers.) Many states have both a Republican governor and legislature. They're out. Some states have a mix. If a state like Missouri, which has a Democratic governor (Jay Nixon) and a Republican legislature, is forced let the legislature only decide, then no way. They won't think twice about opting out, unless people really make their voice heard. Some stalwart Republicans will be tested. I'll predict a state or two may buck the trend at the beginning. It's hard to predict after that.

I hope these conservative Democrats, like Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), that oppose a public option, claiming it's on principle to our "free market values," realize what they're a part of in resisting further reform and relief for their constituents.

Harry Reid goes with opt-out public option

But is the devil in the details?

Okay, I'll give him a break for one minute. But I'll withhold any more judgement on the matter until I can see the entire scope of this health-care bill in the Senate, presumably more conservative than the House version.

TPMDC:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced what we've been reporting today - the merged health care bill will include a public option allowing states to opt-out.

"Under this concept states will be able to determine whether the public option works best for them," Reid told reporters. He said it was the "fairest" way to go.

Reid (D-NV) said after "countless hours" of talking to his caucus, there is a "strong consensus" for this plan. He said he will not submit a plan with a triggered public option to the Congressional Budget Office.

"As we've gone through this process, I've concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators. Dodd and Baucus, that the best way to move forward is to include a public option with an opt out provision for states," Reid said.

And TPM's David Kurtz has that the White House congratulated Reid on the bill, no ifs, and or buts.

Robert Gibbs just issued a statement on behalf of President Obama congratulating Harry Reid for settling on a Senate bill -- and notably expressing his pleasure that a public option was included: The President is "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out."

Obama wants the trigger. Will Reid give in?

After months of stated support for a public option in health-care reform legislation, President Obama looks to have come out on what he wants in the bill: the trigger option touted by Sen. Olympia Snowe ... a Republican and our de facto president. Politico:

Obama told Senate Democratic leadership at the White House Thursday evening that his preference is for the trigger championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — a plan that would allow a public plan to kick in if private insurers don’t expand coverage fast enough, a top administration official told POLITICO. It’s also sign Obama is interested in maintaining a sense of bipartisanship around the health reform plan.

At that meeting, Obama did not sign on to a plan being floated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to include a different variation of the public option in the Senate bill — a plan that would create a national public plan but allow states to “opt out.” Reid now believes he can get 60 votes to bring a bill with that plan to the floor by breaking an expected GOP filibuster — and then secure the 51 votes needed to pass it.

To that last paragraph, then do it Reid. Harry, you are the majority leader of the Senate. Lead! But Reid needs Obama's support in his upcoming reelection campaign, so it's whatever his cash cow wants.

My Vote Will Be Pliable, I Say!

I'm not sure if I like this statement or not:

"Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it," Snowe said in announcing her vote. "But when history calls, history calls."

That's Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) today while being the only Republican in the Senate Finance Committee to vote for the health-care reform bill.

Is that true or false sentiment? Is this a bold approach or not? Does this vote make much of a statement for her? I'm just not sure what she's trying to convey with the "far from it," then saying "history calls." I guess it doesn't ultimately matter what her intentions are, she voted for it. A vote is a vote. Then again, she'll be a pain in the ass for the rest of the process. She'll get what she wants, to a certain extent. They, being the White House, are oddly hellbent on including the mostly unserious Republicans on health reform. Snowe's the only one to take them up.

It seems pretty pathetic for all involved.

Why Wasn't This Pointed Out Earlier? Oh Yeah.

The plot is thickening in the health care debate after a weekend where Obama administration officials, including Obama himself, gave vague signals that the public option was not the most important component in health-care reform. Today the White House is scrambling to make clear, "Hey, hey, hey, ho there folks. We haven't given up on it yet." I don't necessarily believe them, but that's the spin.

What is encouraging are signs that the administration is now vocalizing what has been apparent for quite some time now: Republicans have near zero interest in any meaningful change in health care. Hacks like Chuck Grassley were given (misguided) opportunities to help achieve the ever-allusive, yet always-heralded bipartisan legislation. Whether this lip service from the White House means anything is anyone's guess. Emptywheel's theory is that the White House is trying to cover its tracks without inflaming tensions with moderates or liberals. But does any of this even matter since possibly the only Democrats left that trust Republicans are the two that are leading the legislative action in the Senate Finance Committee: Max Baucus (Captain Ineffective) and Co-op Kent Conrad.

The mainstream media share the blame in sabotaging any honest, rational discourse (as usual). The Economist:

By pitting Barack Obama and his moderate allies in Congress against the more vocal fringes of the Republican Party, the media has moved the centre of the debate over reform far to the right. Add to this dynamic the idea that bipartisanship equals moderation and you may wonder, how can a health-care proposal be moderate if it attracts no Republican support?

But the truth is that Mr Obama has all but ceded control of reform to the likes of Max Baucus and other moderate senators. And if the media focused on that, we'd see that the debate over health care is occurring in the middle of the political spectrum, with the main focus on the "gang of six". As for bipartisanship, on this issue (and perhaps many others) it seems like a faulty measurement of moderation—how can it be accurate if the Republican's chief negotiator, the relatively moderate Chuck Grassley, says he might vote against a bill that gives him everything he wants? (Emphasis mine)

At least the words "public option" are back in the cable news lexicon. But let's not ever forget the creedence the mainstream media awarded the "death panel" meme driven by no other than everyone's favorite McCarthyite and her Facebook page. If there is a God, I hope he or she will grace us with a Palin-Romney GOP ticket in 2012 ... devolution meets top-notch hucksterism. Please let it be so.

We've All Got Scars, They Should Have 'Em Too

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey has stepped down from lobbying firm DLA Piper after the drug companies they lobby for spoke out against Armey's blatant resistance to any kind of health-care reform that will pressure private insurance with a public option.

See, now these drug companies are "all about" reform since the White House has clandestinely brokered an $80M deal with the industry to back the lukewarm reform that will inevitably come from Washington. That means Armey, and his FreedomWorks-touting cronyism, had to go.

Sorry Dick. You're no longer needed. But, you will be receiving a hefty check.

Meanwhile, check out Armey stuttering through a defense of killing reform on PBS Thursday night, I believe technically before he left DLA Piper: