ObamaCare: Rep. Slaughter wants the Senate to start over (oh, sure)
[Posted by Karl]
Strong words on ReidCare from the House Rules Chairwoman, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY):
Supporters of the weak Senate bill say “just pass it — any bill is better than no bill.”
I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.
It’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.
There is little doubt that Slaughter sincerely wants to include a “public option” and to dump restrictions on abortion funding — though the House bill’s Stupak amendment is actually worse, from her point of view. But she presumably knows the Senate is not about to start over.
After Blue Dogs started talking about voting for the Senate bill, there has been a pushback about House Dems not rolling over. With the Democratic leadership looking at foregoing a traditional conference committee in favor of a ping-pong strategy for final passage of ObamaCare (or pong-ping, if further wrangling is required to secure House passage), House progressives are putting up a front to make sure they get some sort of concessions , however small, from the small circle drawing up a final bill. The lingering friction may explain why the Obama administration is not betting on final passage before the State of the Union speech.
–Karl
Two choices: Pitchforks and torches, or we are doomed.
Old Coot (d2bd0f) — 12/23/2009 @ 1:31 pm“Progressive” grumbling is mere grandstanding for the benefit of gullible constitutents and campaign donors. We ought not to get our hopes up. Still, longshots do win once in a great while.
Stu707 (0981d5) — 12/23/2009 @ 1:54 pmI have been wondering what the chances are that Democrats will scuttle the bill, and if so, would it be the left-liberals the centrist-liberals, or a combination of the two that would do it. If they learned anything from the ClintonCare debacle 15 years ago, they will come to the realization that this is their only chance to pass healthcare until at least 2011 (and maybe in fact for the next decade), but there are two factors that may make them lean towards killing the bill:
1) They may truly believe that this is an issue that cuts in their favor in the 2010, and blaming Republicans and Blue Dogs for the bill’s failure is a recipe for maintaining or even increasing their progressive majorities.
2) They may figure that they are so screwed for 2010 that they adopt an “every member for him/herself” mentality and allow their own caucus to vote against it in the hopes that they salvage some of the seats that they might otherwise lose.
It ought to be interesting.
JVW (0fe413) — 12/23/2009 @ 3:43 pmActually, I think we’re reached a turning point where the more unpopular this bill becomes, the more likely it is to pass. Blanche Lincoln, for example, knows her constituents don’t want this bill and will punish her if she votes for it, but she also knows if she doesn’t she won’t be able to raise any money for her re-election campaign. For a candidate who knows they are DOA on November 2010, the vote becomes less about hanging on to their Senate/House seat and more about paving the way for continued high profile government work. Lincoln may be in a damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t position where her re-election campaign goes, but the only way she secures, say, a high profile ambassadorship, if when she goes down is to toe the party line. In that situation, it is clearly in her self interest to pass this monstrosity, even if it diminishes her chances of winning re-election.
Sean P (9f91c3) — 12/23/2009 @ 4:10 pmSean P, I would reckon the House members who lose in 2010 get the mid-level government jobs. The Senators (and any House Committee Chairs) who lose get hired on as lobbyists in high-powered Washington DC firms where they can rake in the big bucks.
JVW (0fe413) — 12/23/2009 @ 4:36 pmStarting over might give them a chance to make a bill that is not unconstitutional.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/23/2009 @ 4:57 pm[…] conference committee in favor of a ping-pong (or pong ping) strategy for passing of ObamaCare since before passage of the Senate version. Second, the strategy eliminates a whopping three procedural hurdles — and they are so […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » ObamaCare: The unsurprising non-conference (e2f069) — 1/4/2010 @ 7:16 pm[…] conference committee in favor of a ping-pong (or pong ping) strategy for passing of ObamaCare since before passage of the Senate version. Second, the strategy eliminates a whopping three procedural hurdles — and they are so procedural […]
Patterico's Pontifications » ObamaCare: The unsurprising non-conference (e4ab32) — 1/4/2010 @ 7:32 pm[…] conference committee in favor of a ping-pong (or pong ping) strategy for passing of ObamaCare since before passage of the Senate version. Second, the strategy eliminates a whopping three procedural hurdles — and they are so […]
ObamaCare: The unsurprising non-conference (e7ecf5) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:56 pm