
Congressional progressives have had to swallow a number of hard health care concessions over the last several months. Just today, an agreement was reached between the Obama administration and Labor to largely preserve an excise tax on expensive health insurance policies, opposed by the overwhelming majority of House members, that could impact middle class Americans. But nonetheless one of the leading progressives in the House says both chambers are ready to pass reform.
"I heard that we're very close to a final decision, that we will be having a bill soon, and it's not going to have everything anybody wants in it, but it will be a bill that can pass the House and the Senate and it will be a start for health care reform in the United States of America," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)--co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me in an interview this evening. "It is moving ahead. [Obama is] very committed to having a health care bill that will be good for America."
"I think we're beyond any one caucus," Woolsey said, before correcting herself to point out that pro-choice Democrats could still withhold their support over the issue of abortion.
Nevertheless, that could be an indication that, despite all the heartache and all the compromises, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might not lose many progressive votes when health care comes to a final vote.
Jay Lapidus
January 14, 2010 11:05 PM
All this assumes that Coakley will win. Otherwise, the compromises are out the window and the Senate's bill will be the only alternative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 3:50 AM in reply to Jay Lapidus
Man, I'm almost praying for her to lose, so this corporate welfare bill CAN BE deepsixed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 14, 2010 11:08 PM
if progressives rollover yet again, after rolling over again and again and again, I don't see how anyone in the public could believe them, or their ability to fight in the future. progressives appear to conservatives best friend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 3:52 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Amen! Who is this a victory for again?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
January 15, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Why don't you two go over to firedoglake where your constant piss-and-moan routine might entertain someone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to hunter
"NO WE CAN'T"!
Is that the new Dem slogan? Sounds like a bunch of defeatists to me.
Or is it sellouts? Go back to counting your money!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
January 15, 2010 4:28 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Nate Silver rates Coakley/Brown a tossup based on the Suffolk poll which incidentally had Coakley up 20+ in its previous Oct and Nov. iterations
All that Firedog Lake/KOS jibberjabber "Primary the bastards!" sure sounds ridiculous now doesn't it
Boston Herald
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 15, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to JohnMcCSF
a primary is where people select the person in their party they believe best represents them. It is not always the incumbent.
If you are against the primary system, then fine, but ridiculing people for particapating in the system the way it is set up is stupid.
You can try to assign blame to whoever, but it will always rest on the candidate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
January 14, 2010 11:15 PM
Vel, Ve must protect the SS. They are special. Ven we need them to load the box car they will do da job And if those fat cat capitalist try to hide, vel they will brake down the doors amd take them to "The Camp".
You know the ones; "Work will set you free", and the panel will make the decision.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
January 15, 2010 12:03 AM
It's a fiasco, a corporate giveaway. Between HC corporations, military contractors, and Wall Street, we're being bled dry. There's not enough money left to spend locally and keep communities thriving. We're all simply working to make the wealthy wealthier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmull
January 15, 2010 5:39 AM
Woolsey calls it a "start." I say it's a start in the wrong direction. There are no examples a subsidy/exchange model successfully controlling costs. There are three examples--FEHBP, CalPERS, and Mass Connector--of it not working. Every other nation with a successful health care system uses some variation of single payer. Why is that so hard to understand?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
January 15, 2010 6:24 AM in reply to bmull
I agree. It just pours more money, in the form of subsidies and forced health insurance, into the same broken system.
And the two systems in Europe that rely on private health insurance companies (Switzerland and the Netherlands) are the most expensive, even though the companies are highly regulated.
It's possible that once this is signed into law, the problems will become impossible to ignore and pressure will build for further reform. I hope so. But it sure looks like a start in the wrong direction to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 15, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to bmull
Well, Switzerland, Germany and Holland all use private insurers, but a single negotiator with providers. And insurers there are as tightly controlled as utilities here, or moreso. Your point is a valid one: there are plenty of proven recipes for success that control costs (or make it easier, more transparent) and offer better results.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
January 15, 2010 7:33 AM
This corporate welfare scheme will be derailed when Scott Brown wins on TUesday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 15, 2010 11:15 AM
Amen! a base to make amendentment in the past like the teabaggers social security bennies and their medicare
'They want their government back" freaking illiterates
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 15, 2010 11:15 AM
The only corporate welfare is white collar crime.......Sorry!
Try again
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 15, 2010 2:38 PM
Here is the definition of corporate welfare...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8R8baHPr2E&feature=PlayList&p=E56F094C9CF8F974&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=77
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lastmarx
January 15, 2010 5:38 PM
Woosley is giving cover to warmonger and Blue Dog Jane Harman in her primary fight with a progressive Vinograd. Some "progessive leader"!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?