
Some Democrats are popping champagne and already writing campaign talking points for how to champion a health care bill they believe President Obama will sign early next year, but today several progressives pulled on the fragile agreement's thread.
Obama is suggesting they can get right to work and said his White House will remain involved after the final passage of the Senate bill tomorrow, and leaders were hoping for a speedy agreement.
There's no hard evidence they'll be denied that victory and TPMDC sources have been saying all week they are tired of Democrats litigating the merits of health care in the press.
House leadership is confident their liberal members may complain loudly but will back the final compromise even if it doesn't change from the more conservative Senate version.
Some of the rumblings from progressives about holding out on the bill are both predictable and toothless, but today House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) wrote in a CNN op-ed that she thinks the process should begin anew.
"It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board," wrote Slaughter (D-NY).
She is influential in the legislative food chain and has the ear of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But in a sign of the sensitivity of the negotiations, a Slaughter spokesman walked back her column and said she may still vote for the final bill even without her favored provisions.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) in a statement today called for a "meaningful conference process" and insisted a public option "must" be included in a final bill.
They did not threaten to oppose the measure without the public option and the employer mandate and affordability provisions they want.
Rep. Joe Sestak wrote Pelosi a letter asking her to keep fighting and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) told Fox New Radio today there is no way the House will "rubber-stamp" the Senate bill.
SEIU's Andy Stern told TPMDC today that he can see the good things in the bill and stopped short of calling for another round.
It's unclear if it's just-for-show fighting or if some members really want to derail and start over. Sources TPMDC has been talking with over the last few days say leadership will eventually call progressives' bluff and get them to support the final measure. They also are starting to see some hopeful signs they will pick up votes from Blue Dogs who opposed the House plan.
USgreentech
December 23, 2009 7:33 PM
Something they've had happen in the 1960's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 23, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to USgreentech
Right. Extremely unlikely. When did it happen and for what legislation? Outcome?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
December 24, 2009 12:50 AM
If Slaughter really believes this then she's stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 24, 2009 1:41 AM
Start over? It's taken since spring. No one will want to go through that again under any circumstances, especially not with election day drawing closer. Even if the Senate Democrats were willing to go through it all again, what makes anyone think the equations will change? Roughly 55 would vote for some weak public option, 58 would vote for the Medicare extension, and 42 would filibuster. There's only one way to pick up the other two votes, and that's to drop the public option and Medicare. So not taking the current bill is crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 27, 2009 3:27 AM in reply to ericf
I guess we need a 70 plus majority in the Senate to get anything done, so we need to scrap this thing and go for more seats in '10. If this bill is signed into law, most "progressives" will stay home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 27, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I know I will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mk3872
December 24, 2009 2:23 AM
She may STILL vote for the bill after writing that piece for CNN? Good grief! Why would she do that?
Maybe the new strategy is that liberals declare everything they want passed to be horrible so that Lieberman & Blue Dogs will vote for it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
December 25, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to mk3872
And the alternative is to simply roll over and let Lieberman, et. al, completely define the Bill as it comes out of conference, without any negotiations at all that might provide SOME compromise that leans a little to the Progressive side?
Sorry, but we've seen how well THAT works in the Senate deliberations, eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluetexas
December 24, 2009 2:34 AM
The current Senate bill is a gift to the insurance companies. They are only complaining because it does not give them every damn thing they want. I am sure my insurance company will continue to screw me over, if not even more. Taking the current bill IS crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mk3872
December 24, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to bluetexas
So Jacob Hacker, Vicki Kennedy and Bill Clinton are crazy? So is the AMA and American Hospital Assoc, I guess, right, bluetexas?
Yeah, I'll take my HCR advice from bluetexas over those morons because you know SOOOO much more about HCR ... LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 24, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to mk3872
Learn to think for yourself. Vicki Kennedy and Bill Clinton like the bill, so you do? What an idiot.
They are championing this bill because for political reasons, not because they think it is awesome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mk3872
December 24, 2009 1:24 PM in reply to masanf
What is Vicki Kennedy's political motive? What is Jacob Hacker's political motive?
Your method of "thinking for oneself" apparently comes with a LARGE dose of over-the-top cynicism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
December 24, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to mk3872
Vicki Kennedy is mainly concerned about her husband's legacy. In her entire life span, has NEVER had to worry about health insurance (rich on both sides of her family)and is simply singing for Teddy. And Clinton, it's about politics period, chalk one up for the Dems. Yes you do have to think for yourself on this one. Start by asking what's in this bill that benefits the electorate; 30 million people forced to buy catastrophic insurance they can't afford anyway with a $5,000 deductible, and if they don't pay up the IRS will become their bill collector. And if you're older your premiums will cost you 3X that of a younger person. Same for pre-existing conditions. No one will address these three simple concerns. I mean, vote for what! Just voting for political points to make the Pubs look bad, is that what you want? Does it make you happy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 24, 2009 9:39 AM
Progressives will support the bill. This bill can be made better once it is passed. It just takes conviction and that's where we need to stay active.
I personally am delighted because there ARE very good things in this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 25, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to lousgirl84
And I know it becuase Obama said so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 25, 2009 2:46 PM in reply to cawleybo
Pegged, it, cawleybo.
lousgirl84 in a nutshell:
(Stolen from here. :) Tip o' the hat to LivinginReality. I've kept the gender references as in the original, although they probably should be changed in this context....)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
have you no decency
December 26, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to gharlane
Beautiful. The Democrats are about to pass historic legislation, backed by 60 sitting Senators, a range of liberal health care experts and political analysts, and in response all you can come up with is ridiculous ad hominem attacks. I could just as easily attack you for following Jane Hamsher down a rabbit hole, but that would be pointless. That some folks find the arguments of Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, Jacob Hacker, Nate Silver, Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Drum, etc etc persuasive does not make them "Obamabots." Some of us just think that denying tens of millions of people of health insurance in order to punish a few corporations is probably not a good trade-off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 27, 2009 2:15 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Well, I am an independent and I won't be making it to the polls for the Dems if THIS bill passes.
Looks like Nader was dead on, when he said they were no different than the Republiturds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
December 24, 2009 3:44 PM
I want what Nebraska got because one of their Senators held out: a 100% Medicaid reimbursement. To my mind, this kind of one-state bribery is completely egregious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 26, 2009 3:11 PM
Don't let O'Bummer fool you.
He claims preexisting conditions will no longer be an impediment to health care. That is a laugh, because there are no caps on what insurance companies can charge under this bill!
Those with preexisting conditions will still be priced out of the market.
His bill also MANDATES that you and I buy insurance from the very same insurance companies that have been keeping us in the poor house all these years. WITH NO GOVERNMENT RUN PLAN TO PROVIDE COMPETITION!
Insurance company stocks are through the roof since the Senate bill was announced!
Congress is going to use the IRS to redistribute your wealth to the CORPORATIONS!
Didn't we already bail out these Wall Streeters earlier this year?
If this bill passes I'm going into the insurance business. Hell, who wouldn't love a guaranteed clientele with no regulation???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
have you no decency
December 26, 2009 3:24 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
To call the health insurance business unregulated after HCR is a flat-out lie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 27, 2009 3:20 AM
Maybe you can show where this bill has REAL "regulation". I'd be keen to see some links. Without a public option, any "regulation" is impotent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
have you no decency
December 27, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
This is a pretty even-handed story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-health-assess18-2009dec18,0,5056746.story
No one is saying this bill is going to solve all of America's health care problems. But if you claim that the insurance industry is unregulated with 400 pages of new regulations, you are either uninformed or deceptive. More importantly, it sets up a regulatory framework that can be expanded and adjusted in the coming years.
But I think the biggest problem with progressive criticism of the bill is the myopic focus on the insurance industry. Insurance reform is necessary to expand coverage, but it is not the primary driver of health care costs. Regulations on hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies would all do much more to reign in costs.
This bill is disappointing in many ways, but it's also a big improvement on what we've got.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 28, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to have you no decency
You are way off on you remarks regarding insurance reform. Do you work in the industry? Obviously, ALL of the sectors you ticked off need to be reigned in, but the insurance outfits have administrative costs (ie. CEO salaries/bonuses advertising etc) that are approaching 30% of every dollar. Compare that to Medicare at 5%
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
have you no decency
December 27, 2009 3:09 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
By the way, it's not that I really disagree with progressive criticism (for the most part), it's that the cost of doing nothing is much worse. I don't like the entrenchment of employer-based insurance, or the pharmaceutical patent expansions, or the lack of a public option in the bill. But none of that is worse than the levels of uninsured in this country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 27, 2009 3:23 AM
How do you explain insurance company stocks skyrocketing since the passage of the Senate bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
have you no decency
December 27, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I just don't consider that evidence that this bill is bad for people. I think it's entirely possible for health care to improve while insurance companies continue to make money. So there's a trade-off with insurance companies gaining lots of new customers, and having to abide by lots of new regulations. I prefer that to the alternative of LESS regulation on the industry and MORE uninsured.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 28, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to have you no decency
Again I ask, where is the regulation? Can you shoot me a link? Most folks who have read the bill say they don't exist and that folks with preexisting conditions will be priced out of the market anyway.
I have searched the thing for MEANINGFUL limits on insurance company behaviour, but I can't find it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
December 28, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to have you no decency
I mean a link to the ACTUAL bill, not some spin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?