It is becoming more and more apparent that reconciliation is the only way to pass "health care reform," even of the Rahmbo "anything that can pass" variety. Ben Nelson says he will filibuster any bill that has a public option OR does not contain the Stupak Amendment. So regular order in the Senate is over. If President Obama and Senate Leader Reid want health care reform, even of the Rahmbo variety, reconciliation is the only way.

Next week Reid unveils the bill after it receives its CBO score. Then Lieberman and Nelson and Landrieu, etc. vow to filibuster. And then we can move to reconciliation. If Obama and Reid really want to pass health care reform. I assume they do.

Speaking for me only

Village wonk Jon Cohn writes:

To [Marcia] Angell--and to others on the left [. . .] --this is reason for ditching the whole effort. But what, really, would that accomplish? The immediate impact would be to undermine Obama and his allies in Congress, creating the (accurate) impression they are incapable of passing major legislation. The Democratic Party would lose seats at the midterms and then, quite possibly, suffer even bigger setbacks two years hence. That's not exactly a recipe for progressive revival.

As a defense of the health care reform bill, this is piss poor. Assume for a moment it is true that failure to pass "health care reform" will cost Democrats seats (which will be impossible to determine imo, as Dems are sure to lose seats no matter what), what Dems are likely to lose, and why? Suppose it is people like Jason Altmire, Travis Childers or Jim Cooper? Is Cohn REALLY arguing that their losses will be a setback to progressivism? Really? That is just plain silly. I support the House health care reform bill, for one major reason, it contains a public option. Nothing else in the bill that is called "reform" (as I have stated before, expanding Medicaid is not reform. It is a good thing but not reform) is worth worrying over imo. I do not believe the final health care reform bill will have any other worthwhile reforms. But if it has a public option, it is worth passing. If it does not, it won't be worth passing. Parts of it? Sure. But let's not call those provisions reform.

Speaking for me only

Jeralyn quotes Rachel Morris on the Stupak Amendment:

Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure. That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government.

(Emphasis supplied.) That problem is easily solved - eliminate the exchange (see Jon Walker inadvertently demonstrate that in fact the exchange is the catalyst for the Stupak problem) and apply the federal subsidies to purchase of insurance under the public option. In short, eliminate the availability of federal subsides for the purchase of private insurance. That way, private insurance companies will never be impacted by the Stupak Amendment.

Speaking for me only

A lot folks have just realized some of the pitfalls of health care reform. I've always understood that any public insurance program, be it Medicare, Medicaid or a public option, will exclude undocumented aliens and coverage for abortion, it seems as if this is news to a lot of people. While there is debate as to the meaning of the Stupak Amendment, let assume the best and that it gets amended to reflect merely Hyde Amendment prohibitions -- what will that mean? What it has always meant - no federal funds for health insurance and/or care for abortions and no health insurance and/or care at all for undocumented aliens.

Suppose however that without the Stupak Amendment, health care reform can not pass - what then? Do we jettison the entire effort? Or can we limit the damage a Stupak Amendment or Hyde Amendment does? I think we can limit it. I have two suggestions - exclude the individual mandate (but maintain, as the House does, the employer mandate) and eliminate the exchange. More . .

Either the House Roll Call misrecorded Jim Cooper's vote on the Stupak Amendment, or Jim Cooper is trying to pull a fast one on Ezra Klein:

[EZRA KLEIN:] The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.

[JIM COOPER:]They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law.

(Emphasis supplied.) "They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment. Cooper appears to be part of the anti-choice majority that "they" say exists.

Speaking for me only

Greg Sargent:

A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and the source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill:

[. . .] The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

This is excellent. Whether this is a real threat or merely a bargaining position, it is precisely how to fight on health care reform to the end. This is Madman Political Bargaining. Good to see progressives trying it.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein wants to reason with Joe Lieberman. I assume it is for rhetorical effect. But the real question is how do Democrats reason with him? I think the answer is quite simple. You tell him what you will do if he filibusters health care reform - to wit, you will use reconciliation.

Of course we all understand that is not the preferred course (the Parliamentarian, etc.), but here's the thing - you need to let people know that is what you will do if you have to. The point here is to neutralize Lieberman (and Lincoln and Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh.) And that is how you do it. You tell him - we can pass "something" on healthcare via reconciliation, and we will, if you make us. And that something will be done without any input from you. (This goes for Snowe's gang as well.) Either these obstructionists get with the program and fight for influence on the bill, or they vote No. And if they vote No, then the folks voting Yes call all the shots. I think it is a simple but important point.

Speaking for me only

Fox News Boston reports Rep. Barney Frank was present at the home of James Ready, his long-time companion, when it was raided for marijuana. Rep. Frank did not live at the house:

According to a police report, police charged Ready with marijuana possession, cultivation and use of drug paraphernalia in August of 2007. Ready admitted to civil possession and paid a fine. The remaining charges were dismissed in 2008. Sources tell FOX25 that when Frank was questioned he told police that he did not live in the house and that he only smoked cigars.

Here's Barney, in his own words, explaining. [More...]

Should lead to final votes tonight. You can watch on C-Span or online.

TPM:

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) announc[ed] his support in a press release [--]"This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go," said Owens. "There are still changes I would like to make, including raising the payroll exemption for small businesses, but like I said last week, there is a fundamental need for reform and we must act with a sense of urgency."

This is typically hilarious from John Hinderaker:

Byron York has been following MoveOn.org's effort to enforce left-wing conformity on the Democratic Party. The latest news is that MoveOn has raised nearly $3.6 million to defeat any Senate Democrat who has the temerity to vote against government takeover of health care.

Heh. Tell that to Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist and Carly Fiorina. To be fair, too many progressive bloggers engage in the same hypocrisy. I like to be consistent and I think I am - everybody should be fighting for what they believe in and every public official should face primary challengers. Of course, I will favor those candidates who promote my views. As everyone else should. Pols are pols my friends.

Speaking for me only

With defenders like Jon Chait, President Obama needs no enemies:

Krugman's column employs a pretty good World War II analogy. Let me use another: imagine a scathing column about the 1938 Munich accord that devotes most of its energy to castigating Czechoslovakian President Edvard Benes for his ineffectual efforts to gain the support of Britain and France, rather than putting Britain and France at the center of the story.

Obama as 1938 Czechoslovakia? That's the defense? Wow. I know that the Village wonks (Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Jon Cohn, etc.) have been arguing that Obama is powerless on health care reform, but Chait is the winner, of sorts, in the "defending Obama as impotent" competition. I'll give them this though - they do not use the annoying "Don't Worry, He's Got It" photo of Obama that was rampant in the Obama fan blogs before.

Speaking for me only