AP: A Glimmer of Hope in the House for ObamaCare
[Guest post by DRJ]
According to an AP survey, there may be at least 9 House members willing to switch their prior “No” votes to support ObamaCare:
“The House version of health care passed 220-215 in November, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, defections, resignations and a death have taken away yes votes.
With four House seats now vacant, Pelosi would need 216 votes to approve the Senate-passed version, which replaces the jettisoned House bill. That’s exactly the number she has now if no other members switch their votes.
In interviews with the AP, at least nine of the 39 Democrats – or their spokesmen – either declined to state their positions or said they were undecided about the revised legislation, making them likely targets for intense wooing by Pelosi and Obama. Three of them – Brian Baird of Washington, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and John Tanner of Tennessee – are not seeking re-election this fall.
The others are Rick Boucher of Virginia, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Frank Kratovil of Maryland, Michael McMahon of New York, Scott Murphy of New York and Glenn Nye of Virginia. Several lawmakers’ offices did not reply to the AP queries.”
The initial AP report said there were ten possible converts but later reports cast doubt on the 10th:
“Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho will not change his vote from no, his spokesman, Dean Ferguson, said Monday night. Minnick had declined to state a position when contacted earlier by the AP.”
The Democrats believe there will be defections among the 216 who previously voted “Yes.” In addition, President Obama is making another effort to appear bipartisan:
“Obama’s announcement on Wednesday is expected to be a freshened blueprint of what he wants to see in a final health care bill, updated with ideas that at least have the fingerprints of Republicans.
The plan will replace the one Obama posted one week ago, but will not be written in legislative language.
Obama’s move underscores his ever-growing role in shaping what he hopes will be a far-reaching revision to the nation’s health care system, a goal that has eluded other presidents dating to Theodore Roosevelt.
Politically, it would also allow him to say that he was listening to Republicans at his ballyhooed bipartisan summit last week and that he has since responded by including more areas of common ground.”
Pelosi has described Obama’s newest plan as a much smaller proposal than the original House bill.
— DRJ
Did they mention that Stupak, author of the Stupak amendment, said he would not vote for the bill under any circumstance, and 12 of the yes votes came from House members who also voted for the Stupak amendment for political cover? Last I checked, 12 is more than 9. Also, Joseph Cao was one of the “yes” votes and he has said he will not vote for the bill this time around and, as a Republican, he will be impossible for Pelosi to lean on.
Sean P (334463) — 3/2/2010 @ 5:37 amThey had more than 220 for the last vote but didnt need them all. But that was a long time ago considering.
Im also confused about this reconciliation. I thought they had to pass the Senate bill and that they could make only minor changes? So what is this plan Obama keeps touting? I thought it was all about the Senate version now?
Dopey (a812c5) — 3/2/2010 @ 6:16 amIs that the AP-Obama doing the talking here?
The backlash of this boondoggle will be monumental.
Hopefully, not as severe as that which followed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1954, where majority Democrats tried to legalize slavery.
bill-tb (541ea9) — 3/2/2010 @ 8:34 amDRJ: Thanks for the update. I wish there were actually nine votes in play. I don’t think so, though, not yet. I have little beyond my gut that some kind of bill will pass. The path is cloudy to me at this point.
I do, however, believe that people have been fooled into thinking Stupak has more juice than he actually has.
Meanwhile, I find myself in the somewhat perverse position of hoping for more Democratic retirements, which is one of the few hopes I share with the RNC. That seems to be the only way to get some Dems in swing districts to pass a progressive agenda, including this bill.
In some cases — Sen. Chris Dodd comes to mind — a retirement works to the party’s distinct advantage.
Anyway, just for informational purposes, here is the list of Dems who voted against the health care bill, with information on their districts and whether they are part of the Blue Dog coalition.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 8:54 amMyron is praying for socialized medicine because he can’t afford to pay premiums on a private insurance policy, and wants other people to pay for him.
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:05 amOIDO: Childish.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:24 amOIDO:
ChildishAccurate.FTFY!
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:27 amred: Tell me about my job and benefits.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:33 amMyron is still on a great crusade to get other people to pay his health insurance bills. Clearly, that’s why this issue is of such profound importance to him, and why his little heart beats faster when rumors of another one or two yes votes is floated in the media.
But let’s face it–what greater injustice is there under capitalism than having to pay your own bills?
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:36 amOIDO: Your supposition seems to be that I can only support legislation that directly benefits me. Now, if that’s how YOU see the world, fine. Your selfishness is your own business. But don’t project onto me.
You might, however, want to look at how government is funded, i.e. taxes. It’s our money to begin with. You’ve been snookered, hoss.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:40 amOIDO: And feel free to join red in telling me about my job and benefits. Salary, health care, etc. I’d be interested to know.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:41 amSo what is this plan Obama keeps touting? I thought it was all about the Senate version now?
Dopey: I’m on the same page as you. This is also confusing to me. They obviously can’t just swap in the president’s plan without going back to the drawing board. No one is making it clear how his plan fits in.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:45 amBut Myron would not, of course, reject legislation that directly benefits him. If that happens, he would feel entitled. After all, it’s our money to begin with, so why shouldn’t plenty of it go back to the people who paid little or no taxes in the first place?
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:48 amAnd feel free to join red in telling me about my job and benefits
Myron, what is there to say, except: “Gimme a venti, double shot, no foam!”
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:53 amOIDO: Huh? Why would I reject legislation that benefits me? Your mind seems to run on a single track of either-or propositions.
It is possible to:
1. Support something that benefits someone else but not you.
2. Support something that benefits you and not someone else.
3. Support something that benefits you and someone else.
All these things are actually possible. I wouldn’t lie to you.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:53 amOIDO: By the way, I’m still waiting for you or red to tell me about my salary and benefits, or else admit you were just blowing smoke out of your a–es, trying to “score” some cheap point.
Don’t think I didn’t notice you side-stepped that question.
Myron (998393) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:55 amOIDO: it appears to me that you’re making a large number of assumptions about someone you don’t know, based simply upon disagreement with their politics.
I don’t find that to be a generally constructive way to debate with people, but your mileage may vary. Effective or not, however, it seems rude to me.
Please stop. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:05 amI find myself in unfamiliar waters. Moron is very trollish nearly all the time and deserves ridicule nearly all the time. But in this instance, Moron’s 8:54 am was a well-reasoned comment and a staking-out of an honest position. That comment was a Myron comment and not a Moron comment, and should be treated as such, as far as I am concerned.
(But don’t read too much into this statement, trolls.)
John Hitchcock (7cbba5) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:19 amThere are no big assumptions being made. There are just questions to ask: Why is this health care legislation so important to Myron? And if Myron has a salary and benefits, why does he eagerly want other people to pick up the tab for his health insurance?
The deep, underlying issue with socialized medicine is that some people think they can get other people to pay their bills for them, and they feel entitled to it.
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:24 amI recently said if I were a member of Congress, I would vote my conscience and allow myself to be defeated in the primary or the general (and that I am a staunch supporter of term-limits). Another Conservative/Libertarian suggested I had principles, unlike those who sit in Congress. Myron’s position showed the same principled attitude, albeit on the wrong side of the issue. But it was, indeed, the same principled attitude.
John Hitchcock (7cbba5) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:24 amOIDO: The deep, underlying issue with socialized medicine is that some people think they can get other people to pay their bills for them, and they feel entitled to it.
I support socialized medicine in some form (although I don’t know enough about the current bill to know if I support it; I don’t have the time to read it) because I think that the average member of society would be better off under it.
Since I work in the tech industry and have a full time job with good benefits, I would personally probably be worse off under it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:50 amI think that the average member of society would be better off under it
Where does this society meet, and where do I get my membership card? It would be great to be a member of a society which has altruists arguing on my behalf all the time–except for the unintended consequences.
No, they would not be better off under it. Once moral hazard is gone, total medical costs will skyrocket, and the aggregate liability to taxpayers will be much greater than before. If some people benefit, it will be by sponging off others, and the benefit will be only for a little while, because the system of delivering medical care will be broken.
It’s sort of like giving free housing to everybody. You could also say that the average member of society would be better off with a bigger home. Pretty soon, people who had 1-bedroom apartments will be demanding 3-bedrooms, only because they think they can get it. Meanwhile, the government will run construction of new housing as well as mortgages, and an inordinate amount of GDP would be shifted toward housing. (What the hell! It’s free!)
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:28 amBut people would not be any better off than before. The taxes to pay for all the extra room would turn out to be equivalent to the difference in costs between a 1-bedroom and a 3-bedroom, before the government got involved.
A disturbing progression (YMMV):
Semi-legalization of marajuana through decriminalization of possession and personal use;
Further-legalization through Medicinal Marajuana Laws;
Extension of Health-Care requirements to Medicinal Marajuana;
Single-payer (govt) Health-care;
Free pot from the Feds.
“…Long-term pot use can double risk of psychosis…”
Posted at 10:02 am by Glenn Reynolds
Even psychotics have moments of lucidity, though Myron may be an exception; but dumb & dumberer (imdw & Intelliology) most assuredly are not.
AD - RtR/OS! (ad40ca) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:28 amOops…marijuana!
AD - RtR/OS! (ad40ca) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:32 amOnce moral hazard is gone, total medical costs will skyrocket, and the aggregate liability to taxpayers will be much greater than before. If some people benefit, it will be by sponging off others, and the benefit will be only for a little while, because the system of delivering medical care will be broken.
This is not an accurate description of what has happened in other states with socialized medicine.
That said, I mentioned my support for socialized medicine merely as a means to provide the evidence to refute your claim that supporters of socialized medicine support it because they feel they are entitled to get other people to pay their bills for them. Your response seems slightly off-topic: rather than addressing whether or not my statement undermines your claim, you responded by arguing that my belief is wrong. It’s an interesting discussion, but not relevant to my point – whether my belief is correct or not, it is my belief, and that belief is held despite believing that I would personally be worse off under such a system.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:40 amI mentioned my support for socialized medicine . . . to refute your claim that supporters of socialized medicine support it because they feel they are entitled to get other people to pay their bills for them.
One exception does not disprove a general rule, no matter what David Hume said.
This is not an accurate description of what has happened in other states with socialized medicine
See Canada.
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:55 amSee Canada.
Canada has skyrocketing medical costs with a much greater aggregate liability to taxpayers and a broken medical system?
None of my Canadian friends would agree with that.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:00 pmHuman nature, or at least what we have seen here in America – when you get something at little or no cost, you place little value on it. Entitlement programs have shown this over and over. And it is from people at all levels that contribute to the downfall.
Take public housing. No one is responsible. The company doing the building gets Gov’t money regardless of how well it’s built or how costly. The landlord gets Gov’t money regardless how well the building is maintained or how happy the tenant. The tenants get Gov’t money (rent reduction) regardless how well they treat the place they live or surroundings. (yes there are marginal exceptions)
The fact is, when medicine is socialized, we will see the same thing. People will take it to the fullest. If the program says you can get eye glasses every year, they will – regardless of need.
Decisions will not be made by the users, but by the central authority. Health Care will be based on numbers, not needs. Orwellian for sure.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:01 pmAll you have to do is look back, in this country, to the implementation of Medicare in the 70’s, and the explosion of demand-driven cost increases.
Where before, a trip to the doctor’s office was an out-of-pocket expense, people reserved those trips for something meaningful; after Medicare made those trips essentially cost-free, demand exploded, and cost’s multiplied as any economist could have explained, as people went to see the doctor for every little case of the sniffles and ache.
Once again, we are attempting to repeal the Law of Supply & Demand; and instead of solving the problem, we will only make it worse.
“Those who ignore the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.”
Seamus McGrane (ad40ca) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:04 pmYes, Canandian health-care is so good the Premier of Newfoundland-Nova Scotia went to Florida for a heart proceedure.
AD - RtR/OS! (ad40ca) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:05 pmThough the Canadian system is a good example of what we should try to avoid, examples like TaxachusettsCare are better for purposes of this discussion.
JD (410197) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:18 pmSee Canada
They have decided to pass along those skyrocketing costs in the form of shortages.
Canada has . . a broken medical system?
The prime minister of Newfoundland, Danny Williams, recently had heart surgery in the United States. It was successful.
Official Internet Data Office (40c230) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:27 pmred: Tell me about my job and benefits.
You have the job as Head Fluffer on the pre – production epic called North Pole.
Additional benefits are sloppy seconds.
Dmac (799abd) — 3/2/2010 @ 3:27 pm