Plan B 2.0: Are Dems Walking Back From The Brink On Health Care?

Good news - if it lasts. I hope TPM gets control of itself (Hopefully Josh has cried himself out) and really does try to "figure out" what is going on on the Hill instead of posting every single utterance from pouting Democrats and calling it analysis.

I hope so. Dems you are just inches from the goal line. Bring it over the goal.

Followed the link you have there with Schakowsky, and read this:

"She said they talked about moving a corrections bill that required only 51 votes in the Senate BUT SAID THAT WOULD NOT INVOLVE PASSING THE SENATE BILL TOO" (emphasis mine). Maybe I am misreading it, but that sure doesn't sound like Plan B to me. Furthermore, multiple Blue Dog House members have said there is no way they would go along with any plan that involves reconciliation on anything.

If Politico is to be believed, it sounds like there may be no real movement from the previous weeks. House will submit a bill with the marginal changes they made earlier and ask the Senate to approve it with 51 votes. An excellent move. Let's hope it holds.

Thank God! When Yarmuth says that he is confident they will have a deal by the end of the week that is encouraging, because he is a red state Dem. That tells me that moderate Dems are still on board with HCR, even the Stupakrats. Moderate Dems had previously expressed more support for the Senate bill.

Though I found Obama's statements yesterday infuriatingly weak, I think what he was doing in part was providing cover for House Dems so that he could work a deal behind the scenes. The House Dems seem, especially liberals, to require a lot of hand holding and a reality check on their ambitions. I would credit Kent Conrad with giving the House a realistic assessment of the reconciliation process. Small pieces can be passed with it, but taking the entire bill through reconciliation would simply be unworkable.

Pelosi seems to be one of the few members with calmness, sensibility and resolve in the House caucus. Thankfully, she is the leader. The only path to redemption for the Democrats is to pass the Senate bill without delay. The knee-jerk reaction of weakness on the part of some Dems like Frank to a low-turnout special election defeat by an empty suit over an invisible pant suit has left me very wary. I do not think the House Dems can be trusted to push through the big issues, like energy reform, banking reform, or anything that requires real effort.

It isn't about left v. right, or conservative v. liberal. Both liberal Dems and conservative Dems simply posture to keep their jobs and avoid having to consider anything that might require them to step out of their comfort zone. That's why conservadems opposed public option even though it made the most sense for their districts, and liberals have unfairly demonized the Senate bill, even though it does a number of worthwhile provisions and it received the support of 60% of the US Senate.

If Obama wants to get anything done in Congress, he has to triangulate like Bill Clinton did, and find staff members (as Rahm Emmanuel once was before he became a lackluster chief of staff) to get up in the grills of all members of Congress and make them conform by hook or by crook. It needs to be top-down from the White House, because members of Congress have little true initiative, with few exceptions like Alan Grayson. That also means cutting deals with Republicans where there are deals to be made. As much as the GOP hated Clinton, he beat them soundly on most legislative battles and was adept at identifying GOPers that he could make deals with on an issue by issue basis.

Any progressive who votes against the Senate Bill is a fraud in my book. They claim they are champions of the poor, but when a bill finally comes along that will provide healthcare for the tens of millions who previously couldn't afford it, these so-called progressives vote no. It's so nice that the Progressive Caucus can stand up for its principles while thousands must lay down and die each year because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor.

It's interesting that reconciliation has come back to the conversation, especially since some of us who thought that Congress should kill the bill were ridiculed in this forum just a few weeks ago. Then, I was saying that they could pass a simpler insurance regulation reform bill. Now, I'm listening to left-leaning pundits suggest we could take some of the good things from this bill and pass them separately. Then, the argument was the reconciliation would be hard and therefore unapproachable. Now, reconciliation is still hard, but under consideration.

At this point, if Congress feels like it would be better for the House to pass the Senate bill, then they should do it. I'm not sure that the members of the House -- all of whom are up for re-election this year --are so confident. Personally, I like the idea of making Republicans vote on individual items like pre-existing conditions, recision and even drug reimportation, if they have the courage to pursue it.

The Republicans have used the larger bill to misinform the public; We have to acknowledge that it's working. Let's break it down and put them on the record for each item. If they vote against any of these items, we can use it against them in November.

Does anyone honestly feel they will "fix" the bill if they ever manage to pass one? They won't. They're going to RUN from this issue one way or another. Is that me being defeatist or realistic?

This is all well and good, but someone apparently forgot to tell the president, who called an audible. He has now repeated yesterday's comments and called for something much smaller: ending rescission based on pre-existing coverage and offering modest subsidies. That will do nothing to prevent carriers from jacking up their rates to make up the difference and is pretty weak tea, but the White House blinked and now just wants to pass any bill imaginable. Those of you who were disappointed that last year's policies were too centrist might as well tune out now. To the extent you haven't already.

Back peddle, cower, retreat and get defined by the republicans and media are the democratic platform. What would the republican do? Shove something through and not care what people are saying. They would be strong and tough and threaten those who are against them. This tactic works. If you come from a position of strength you control everything. Even in power the Dems control nothing because they are weak. Every debate and narrative is framed by the republicans because they are strong.

The results in Mass told us that the American people want the democrats to be strong so what do the democrats do? Fold like a house of cards. That will work

Ed Rendell was really quite on target last night on Rachel Maddow. Pass preexisting condition legislation and repeal Glass-Steagall and afterward when the insurance companies scream foul, shove a public option down their throats.

I'm sure it's more complicated in reality, but it got my attention. Make the GOP vote against insurance discrimination and for maintaining unfair monopolies and see how well they do this November.

It seems to me that Brown's victory is ultimately a good thing for progressives. The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have been remarkably ineffective passing major legislation. Bush was able to get approval for terrible tax cuts and a disastrous war through the House and Senate when the Democrats could have blocked both initiatives. Obama has been unable to get anything passed since the stimulus despite large majorities. To me this has been poor leadership and lack of political toughness.

Democrats have blown off the pitchfork crowd, aka teabaggers, but they cannot ignore the loss in Mass. The teabaggers have popular support to the extent that they're seen as the only opposition to letting Wall Street off scot-free. Now, the NYT has been leaked a story that Obama will make a speech outlining a major policy shift towards the recommendations of former Fed Chair Paul Volcker. This is not a coincidence.

Second plus: Now that there is no way Senate Democrats can cram through legislation on their own, progressives can shift the responsibility for lack of progress on ANY initiative to Republicans. I believe that some Repubs can be siphoned off now. It is easy to have solidarity as the party of NO when the other side has the all the power and responsibility--it's a consequence free strategy. Passage of a bill pre-Brown would have meant that Democrats acted in a partisan way, in the political calculus of the Right, and could be blamed for any negative feedback on health care reform. Republicans could say to unhappy independents that everything was the fault of the Dems. If Democrats didn't pass anything, both Republicans and the Democratic base could rightly say that Democrats are incapable of governing. In short, Republicans could have their cake and eat it too.

The voting public, who now have a good understanding that 60 votes are required in the Senate to get anything important done, will see that inaction by the Senate to help on jobs, health care, or anything else, must be a function of Republican partisanship. Pre-Brown, it was Democratic partisanship coupled with incompetence to blame.

Forget Frank & Pelosi. Rep. Michele Bachmann and her staff are prepared to craft health care legislation which will meet the needs & approval of American people.

I think that after HCR is passed, and it will be passed, Obama will move to the right in a Clintonesque triangulation. It's all he's got. And as a pragmatist, he should have no qualms about it.

I think that convincing those who already voted for HCR to vote on it again is relatively easy. The GOP will attack them for the first vote in any event and will accuse them of flip-flopping, weak-minded, hypocrisy if they vote no the second time. The Stupakrats are a real problem to deal with, but I think re-election is a bigger concern and Stupak himself might be more malleable because he wants to run for Gov. and could use some help from the party. Obama and Pelosi have to make the sale for this to happen.

What can we do to convince House Democrats to vote for the Senate bill?

Why would Blue Dogs like Plan B? We already know they dislike abortions.

I'm all for health care reform, but I have also lived on this earth for over 60 years and am aware of many bills passed with backing from special interests which, after enacting, caused this nation much harm.

Anyone remember the little Savings and Loan decontrolling episode back in the early eighties? How about this last little go around which may still destroy our nation as an economic leader?

I for one have learned to NOT trust the leadership of EITHER party. Those are the same clowns (BOTH parties) who were responsible for the current fiasco which is in reality causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims... and is still making the financial leaders rich. Those of you who believe those same folks who did this need to look at their integrity... then decide if you think giving your children's lives over to them is really the prudent thing to do.... IMHO