There's An App For That

Just remember, when a Tea Party member comes up with an app that displays public employee unions as hordes of  vampires sucking blood from taxpayers, it was in response to this.  The best part will be that the Tea Party's app will not require any changes to a picture of Nancy Pelosi to make her look undead.

Truth be told, this doesn't offend me.  Anyone who actually thinks Obamacare will work to reduce the deficit deserves credit for overcoming their obvious intellectual deficit to make something of themselves.

Don't Complain, Paul

Paul Ryan says he's spoken to Nancy Pelosi once, for about 30 seconds, in six years on the Hill.  A few thoughts:

1.  That's 30 seconds more than I could endure.
2.  Does being subjected to one-on-one conversation with Pelosi count as an enhanced interrogation technique?
3.  This is why Ryan is still sane despite having been in Congress for six years.
4.  The Democrats plan to re-elect this sterling example of someone who reaches out to the other side to their leadership.  Just remember this when they complain about a lack of bipartsianship. 

Yeah, I Don't Think They Get It

The GOP won't throw a party to celebrate winning back control of the House because of a recession and 9.6% unemployment, but Nancy Pelosi is throwing a party to celebrate the "accomplishments" of the 11th Congress.

Seriously, how did the GOP ever lose to a group this myopically stupid?

We Were The Underpants Gnomes We Were Waiting For

Megan McArdle comes up with my favorite theory for describing the Democrats' ill-fated decision to pass nationalized health care and why they believed it wouldn't hurt them at the polls...

How much did health care matter in Tuesday's results?  A lot, argues Eric McGhee; in fact, it may have helped cost Democrats control of the House...

I'm still sort of awed that Democrats managed to convince themselves otherwise.  It was the Underpants Gnome theory of politics:

1.  Pass huge, unpopular bill

2.  ???

3.  Bounce in the polls

None of the arguments ever made any sense, and at the time, I assumed that the people advancing them were simply spinning for the media.  But as time wore on, it became clear that at least some of them actually believed it, including people who voted yes on the bill and then went to their doom. 

Those who seem to think that the election was decided simply by the poor state of the economy are ignoring reality.  The 60+ seat wipeout in the House represents more than just voter frustration with poor economic performance.  It also represents voter anger and discontent with a Congress that ignored thier wishes and pissed on their constiuents by passing a huge new health care entitlement.

It's important to note that Democrats still seem hell-bent on defending the bill, but they almost always fall back on defending the "popular provisions" of the bill, such as the ban on pre-existing conditions and the ability of parents to keep their kids on their insurance until they are 26.  They cannot defend the rest of the legislation amongst mixed company, because when they try, they get challenged on less-than-credible claims like the assertion that the bill will trim the budget deficit.  I don't even think many Democrats believes that claim. 

Mickey Kaus makes the related point that the sales pitch for health care was one guaranteed to lose senior votes, because of the realistic concern about death panels.  This may provide some comfort to Dems who truly believe that the problem with health care was the "messaging" and also have them arguing that Obama and Co. cost themselves votes by being honest in selling the program.  This would ignore two basic points: 

1.  If messaging was the problem, then the bill really would have become more popular after passage (it has not) and Pelosi's stupid claim that they had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it might actually make some sense.

2.  Any honesty in the claims made about the health care bill is effectively offset by the Dems' gaming of the CBO score and the procedural shenanigans they engaged in to pass the bill.

So where does that leave us?  Well, back to the gnomes...

Stream of Consciousness...

My first 20 post-election thoughts, in no particular order...

1.  Toomsday!  Woo-hoo!  Pennsylvania finally replaces the weaselly douchebag (Specter).  Specter is the one elected politician in America (non-wacko division) whom people on both the left and right hated (my wife and I differ greatly on politics, and both of us despise Specter).   Toomey's exactly the sort of guy the GOP needs in the Senate -- he was fiscally conservative back in the late 1990's talking about Social Security reform when no one had the balls to do it.

2.  Loved on the humility of the GOP winners, but they can still blow it.  The good news is that the best speeches came from the guys who really can drive the party in a new direction and are sincere about it -- Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, and especially Marco Rubio.  I'm resisting the urge to start printing Rubio 2016 bumper stickers.

3.  Angle's and O'Donnell's losses show that the GOP's Tea Party wave can only be stopped if their candidates are subpar (Mike Lee, Paul, Johnson, and Rubio won going away) and by quirks of local politics (Nevada and especially Alaska).  Even Toomey's victory is impressive in a state with a Dem registration edge of 1.2 million voters.  Real Lesson: Better candidate vetting might produce better results.  Spin from Angle/O'Donnell supporters: the mainstream media and the Dems are misogynist assholes when it comes to women Republican candidates.  There's some truth to the charge (Nikki Haly's margin in South Carolina was probably a little lower than it should have been), but that's not the reason either one lost.

4.  The Murkowski/Miller mess might be the best thing possible for the GOP.  If Miller loses, Sarah Palin takes a bit of a hit.  I'm agnostic on that issue, but the White House probably wants her in the race in 2012, when I think Obama might be beatable by someone else (then again, the whole GOP field at present makes me think we need to consider running a video clip of Ronald Reagan).  Last night's results will probably lead a lot of GOP moderates to start looking to coalesce around one candidate, while conservatives/Tea Partiers might give pause to supporting Sarah so ardently, because of #3. 

5.  Interesting question in alaska -- the margin will be close enough that absentees will need to be counted (which may narrow the margin, since Miller is former Army, and they'll need to interpret each write-in).  Could be headed for a long fight. 

6.  California is officially screwed.  I saw someone say this, but it bears repeating: this week's results make it more likely California needs a federal bailout in the near future because of whom they elected... and also make it less likely they'll get one because of whom the rest of the country elected.  And on top of that, an electorate that is stoned enough to re-elect Boxer and bring back Jerry Brown somehow decides not to legalize pot.

7.  Maryland and Massachusetts are both depressing results, because if the GOP can't get a Congressional seat in Massachusetts last night, they never will (and Scott Brown will probably lose re-elect in 2012), while Maryland re-elected a corrupt jackass as Governor by a wide margin during a GOP wave.  Don't get me started on Barney Frank's idiotic victory speech.

8.  My own Congress seat is headed for a recount, with the incumbent Dem in the lead by less than 1,000 votes out of about 205,000 cast.  My fondest hope still exists: the margin narrows and the GOP candidate wins by one vote, all because my wife couldn't neutralize my vote due to a work conference.

9.  Jon Runyan becomes the first former Eagle in Congress, representing Kevin.  Perhaps Donovan McNabb can join him, since he's apparently not good enough to run 2 minute drills anymore.

10.  F--- Nevada.  F--- Harry Reid.  Sorry.  They totally killed my buzz with that result.

11.  GOP +6 in the Senate is not good enough, but it shows Dem strategy of localizing elections and attacking candidates personally worked to some degree.  However, the GOP will probably lose Colorado and Washington combined by about 1% of the vote, which portends good things for 2012.  Keep in mind that of the 33 seats up this year, the GOP had to defend 18 or so; the Dems have to defend more seats in 2012.

12.  On the plus side of Harry Reid's victory, he's still a douche, and still on the national stage, hanging around Obama like a stale fart.

13.  The biggest trend no one discussed as much as they should have -- the Midwest save for Minnesota basically turned deep red.  Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania... with the exception of the Illinois Governor's race and three tight House races in Iowa where Dems surivived, the GOP basically executed a sweep.  In the states listed above, the GOP went a combined 11-1 in the Senate/Governor's races, stealing 5 Governor's seats previously held by Dems and 3 Senate seats held by Dems.

14.  Back to Rubio... he nearly won 50% in a three-way race, and probably carried Rick Scott across the finish line to a win in the Governor's race.  Wow.

15.  Nikki Haley wins in South Carolina, giving us two Governors of Indian-American descent.  I am officially a slacker.

16.  The Dems may end up seeing the control of the Senate as a curse, especially Obama.  He may have to turn to the center, because going left and blaming the GOP for being obstructionist will be difficult when he still controls the Senate.  But the Dems in the Senate will have to be more moderate, because guys like Ben Nelson, Mark Prior, and others face tough re-election battles in two years in states where the GOP is ascendent. 

17. But Obama doesn't want to turn to the center too much, because he may get a primary challenge from the left.  They're still ticked that there's no public option, we're still in Afghanistan, Gitmo's open, gays aren't in the military, no cap and trade, and now Obama may have to agree to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.  He's in a tough spot, although the GOP is probably incmpetent enough to help him out. 

18. Charlie Crist, biggest loser, followed by Pelosi, Obama, O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, and Conway.  Speaking of Conway, I hope Rand Paul brings Aqua Buddha to the U.S. Senate floor.

19.  Right now, I'd expect next year to be a battle legislatively, after the parties agree to extend the tax cuts and make some symbolic spending cuts.  Obama's deficit commission will issue a report that will lead to a fight, and health care will be a mess as the GOP tries to defund Obamacare.  I look forward to the resulting government shutdown and drinking Scotch at 10 in the morning for a couple weeks.

20.  734 days until November 6, 2012.

Please, Nancy, Stick Around As Our Punching Bag

Word has it that Nancy Pelosi wants to be House Minority Leader.  She has a surprising source of support.

Guys, Put Down The Bong

Only in San Francisco would someone complain about Nancy Pelosi being appointed mayor because she's too accomodating to conservatives (hat tip: Instapundit).

Well, San Francisco and North Korea, but you get the idea.

The Health Care Follies Continue

I didn't realize the health care bill was this unfriendly to small business...

Most people know about the individual mandate in the new health care bill, but the bill contained another mandate that could be far more costly.


A few wording changes to the tax code’s section 6041 regarding 1099 reporting were slipped into the 2000-page health legislation. The changes will force millions of businesses to issue hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of additional IRS Form 1099s every year. It appears to be a costly, anti-business nightmare.


Under current law, businesses are required to issue 1099s in a limited set of situations, such as when paying outside consultants. The health care bill includes a vast expansion in this information reporting requirement in an attempt to raise revenue for an increasingly rapacious Congress.


...Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS.

This is friggin' insane. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air puts it well...

And they did it as part of a health-care bill. Instead of directing capital towards growth-stimulating efforts, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats just buried the private sector in an avalanche of compliance costs.

Morrisey calls it "another Pelosi Easter egg." It's an Easter egg filled with manure.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Ah, it finally passed.  But do the follies continue?

Well, they do in ways I don't think the President and his allies have considered.  Kudos to the Dems for finally figuring out that DemonPass was one of the dumbest friggin ideas in the history of their party (and this is the party that birthed the Carter Administration).  Instead of eviscerating two core concepts of democracy, the Democrats chose to eviscerate only one, by merely ignoring the will of the majority of the American people.   They will probably pay the price for their arrogance at the ballot box come September -- the GOP's Fire Pelosi site is going to score over $840k today and tomorrow (I'll be adding to the till myself later today).  And Jim Geraghty lists out a ton of potentially vulnerable Democrats this fall, including my own Congressman, Gerry Connelly (heard him on the radio complaining about Northern Virginia's potholes and how they were impacting his staffers; hopefully in November, we can free him up to do some of the work repairing the potholes himself). Geraghty's core point is right -- that there's a ton of Democrats out there who can be defeated this fall to pay for their vote, and begin the process for repealing the bill.  Heck, I'd just plan to go after every Democrat, even the ones who voted against the bill -- they're the same people who voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, didn't they?

Powerline lists some silver linings, including...

Paul Ryan has emerged as one of the conservative movement's strongest spokesmen. In the years to come, I think we will hear the words "I'm a Paul Ryan Republican" with increasing frequency.


The health care debate has energized the conservative movement and awoken the sleeping giant, that is, the American people. The Democrats misinterpreted their electoral victories in 2006 and 2008 as a mandate for socialism. Now a majority of voters are intent on disabusing them of that misapprehension. Just about all of the political energy today is on the right--a remarkable fact, only sixteen months after the Democrats' high-water mark in November 2008.

Paul Ryan is an f'n rock star. I'm ready for Paul Ryan for President 2012 at this point, although he'll probably turn up as Tiger Woods go-between for extra-marital romps with our luck. But this speech is nothing short of awesome, and the type of rhetoric conservatives need to use in attacking this bill.

But back to the real issues before us.  Randy Barnett brings up an important question -- what does it mean for the future of democracy when a bill like this is passed over the passionate wishes of so many?  Other than the idea that Democrats are screwed in November?  Megan McArdle nails the point that many Democrats are missing right now...

Parties have passed legislation before that wasn't broadly publicly supported. But the only substantial instances I can think of in America are budget bills and TARP--bills that the congressmen were basically forced to by emergencies in the markets.


One cannot help but admire Nancy Pelosi's skill as a legislator. But it's also pretty worrying. Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority? Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn't want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don't find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances. Farewell, Social Security! Au revoir, Medicare! The reason entitlements are hard to repeal is that the Republicans care about getting re-elected. If they didn't--if they were willing to undertake this sort of suicide mission--then the legislative lock-in you're counting on wouldn't exist.


Oh, wait--suddenly it doesn't seem quite fair that Republicans could just ignore the will of their constituents that way, does it? Yet I guarantee you that there are a lot of GOP members out there tonight who think that they should get at least one free "Screw You" vote to balance out what the Democrats just did.


If the GOP takes the legislative innovations of the Democrats and decides to use them, please don't complain that it's not fair. Someone could get seriously hurt, laughing that hard.

To further the points made by McArdle and Barnett, Medicare passed the House with 316 votes -- nearly 100 more than Obamacare.  In other words, the bills had popular bi-partisan support -- Republicans and Democrats were out there selling the merits of the new program.  Now?  Now, you have an entire portion of the electorate that is energized in opposition to this new entitlement, and there is no one on that side who will sell the concept to them.   That's problem #1 -- you have people who are invested in the failure of Obamacare.  And they will work to see it happen, whether that means figuring out ways to drive up costs for government and destroying the fiscal solvency o fthe system (an admittedly nihilistic view that will gain currency over time) to the civil disobedience and costly lawsuits that people will launch in an effort to stop the program.

But the bigger problem is #2 -- This changes the rules, forever.  The Dems passed a massive "reform" bill to remake 1/6th of the U.S. economy, with no support from the other side of the aisle.  So don't expect the GOP to just opt to "ignore the will of the people" when they have a chance to kill Social Security, Medicare, or Obamacare -- expect them to conceive some brilliant legislative strategem to gut all three programs.  I'm serious -- can't anyone else see a circumstance where a "fiscal emergency" leads Congress to decide that these obligations simply aren't pressing enough to be paid?  Hey, six years ago at this time, only about 1% (if that) of the American electorate knew the name Barack Obama.  Things change quickly.

I have no problem in government passing a different policy than the people think is right, if those elected representatives can make a reasoned argument for why they're right and their constituents are wrong (I'm reasonably certain that this could be the basis of an honorable debate in the case of an issue like immigration). That has not happened here -- instead, it's more fairy-tale economics and petulant foot-stomping by the President. In choosing to do this, our political class (or, to be accurate, a portion of the political class) has trashed much of the remaining respect many people have for our system of governance. That's not a good thing, no matter what one thinks of health care reform. The process lay bare the seediest elements of legislative sausage-making. Or as Alcee Hastings put it...



As an aside, does it say something for Democrats that their party ran an impeached federal judge for office, then put him on the Rules Committee?

I know the conventional political wisdom is that this health care bill can't be repealed.  But conventional political wisdom also said you don't pass something like this bill without some support from the other side and without popular support.  That conventional wisdom's out the window.  The other one might go next.

The Healthcare Follies Continue

The House has now endorsed the Slaughter solution, also known as DemonPass (if nothing else, the healthcare debate has been fantastic for revealing the creativity of conservatives in coming up with shorthand ways to refer to dumb Democratic ideas, such as the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase). Glad to see that hopenchange meant "congressman who seek to hide from their voting records".

I don't think Democrats get what they are doing -- they think this debate over process is just some hypocritical blather from the GOP. It may well be hypocritical -- but the way this debate is playing out is that the Democrats will pull every dirty trick possible to get legislation passed that the public does not want.  Forget the fact that the bill will be tied up by lawsuits related to constituionality and process now -- the Landmark Legal Fund already has the complaint drafted -- in addition to the lawsuits related to the individual mandate and other substantive provisions.  No, the political value in this thing is now gone -- saying you voted for a rule and not the Senate bill means nothing when it reiterates how fundamentally screwed up the process is.

I'm not even going to bother linking to whip counts now.  The CBO numbers are out, but already in dispute. Dan Foster does a nice job breaking down some issues...

Consider that $53 billion of the $118 billion in supposed savings over the first ten years of the latest bill (which is still a moving target) comes from increases in Social Security payroll tax revenues resulting from expected increases in wages (the idea being that employers will pay better in an Obamacare world). But even if it materializes, pegging that money to deficit reduction instead of to the continued solvency of Social Security is either naive, disingenuous or both. Likewise, the report counts as savings the estimated $70 billion in premiums to be colllected as part of a new government-run, long-term care program for the elderly. But just like premiums in the private sector, these funds will be used to pay out future benefits, not reduce the deficit.


Oh, and did we mention that the new bill borrows $19.1 billion in savings from the socialization of the student loan industry?


...Of course, most of this is small fry compared to the biggest con of all: the front-loaded taxes that push most of the bill's costs outside the CBO's ten-year budget window. Consider: the bill spends $17 billion in its first four years, and $923 billion in its next six.

You have to love the multi-tasking inclusion of student loans just to make the fake budget numbers work. It's even given us a new dirty provision: The Bismarck Bribe....

The legislation contains provisions apparently designed to ensure votes from wavering Democrats. As outlined in the House version, the compromise plan would give nonprofit loan providers in several states the right to participate, along with for-profit loan companies selected through a competitive process, in helping the Education Department distribute loan money to students.


A new element, included in the plan issued on Thursday, would give a specific right to the Bank of North Dakota to issue federally subsidized student loans, meaning that it would be the only lender remaining outside of the Education Department's direct-lending system.


The Bank of North Dakota is a state-owned lender that Democratic aides described as representing the type of nonprofit entity they want to encourage. Critics of the loan bill suggested the provision was designed to win the support of a key Democrat, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Seriously, I think the Democrats think they operate in a world of shadows or something, that the public won't see. There's also rumors about Dem Congressmen getting promises of federal jobs if they retire or are defeated. Tom Coburn, who's fast becoming one of my favorite politicians ever, is already firing a warning shot on this one. I think he's trying to tell the President and his supporters that they will toxify D.C. to the point where we very well may see cats and dogs living together.  This has more practical meaning than one can imagine -- the Dems can try to run against GOP obnstructionism all they want, but being a pain in the ass on executive appointments next spring is not exactly something that will rally voters.

As to the votes, there's so many counts out now that it's worthless.  Put it simply, there are probably 25-30 votes in play, almost certainly all Democrats.  It's close, so I think it will pass, because I can't see the Dems losing by a vote or two (in fact, I can see Pelosi delaying the vote even longer to get the last vote or two). But there's no way to know for sure until the vote is scheduled (probably for Sunday).  After that, expect hell to break loose.  Althoug I am a longstanding proponent of chaos, even I'm a little apprehensive about what voters might do if the Democrats do this.

The Health Care Follies Continue

The Democrats are apparently still waiting on a CBO score, which means the score they have isn't to thier liking.  Phillip Klein reports that all the gaming of the rules regarding reconciliation has left the Democrats with a problem in trying to formulate an actual reconciliation bill...

There are several things that Democrats are up against when it comes to the CBO score. The most important is that, based on reconciliation instructions, the “fix” bill must be shown to reduce the deficit. The challenge is, that’s after assuming that the Senate bill is law. In other words, the reconciliation bill can’t claim any of the deficit reduction from the Senate bill, but rather it must reduce the deficit relative to the Senate bill. Yet the changes that are being talked about will cost a lot of money. This includes eliminating the “Cornhusker kickback” and offering enhanced Medicaid subsidies to all states, increasing subsidies for the purchase of insurance, eliminating the so-called "donut hole" on Medicare prescription drug benefits, and whatever else they put in the bill. At the same time, delaying until 2018 the enactment of the “Cadillac tax” would be scored as a reduction in revenue, and thus add further to the deficit. They’d have to make up the gap through tax increases as well as try to siphon “savings” away from the student loan bill. (More on that here.) But evidently it seems like they’re running into trouble on this front.

The benefit of the Slaughter rule is that it's making people look at reconciliation as less unseemly.  I rarely see eye to eye with Jack Caffrey, but he's right when he says the Slaughter solution "reeks." (hat tip: Instapundit) He's also been joined by a Democratic Senator, who unlike Pelosi can't be assured of hanging onto her seat in Congress. The best argument Democrats seem to be able to muster in favor of this idiotic idea is that the GOP has done it in the past (although not for anything as big as reforming 16% of the American economy), a form of argument that wouldn't pass muster on an elemetary school playground. You cannot assert the propriety of the measure by invoking precedent -- that may be persuasive in the court of law, but pointing out the hypocricy of the other side (if I grant the argument that it's hypocritical) does not make this right.

Meanwhile, my Congressman's staff is calling the Capitol Police on his constituents.



I don't doubt that there's a rule against filming in Congressional offices, but perhaps Congressman Connolly's constituents can deem the rule no longer exists. And hey, I happened to glance at Congressman Connolly's webpage on how a bill becomes a law. I thought these passages were enlightening...

The consideration of a measure may be governed by a "rule." A rule is itself a simple resolution, which must be passed by the House, that sets out the particulars of debate for a specific bill—how much time will allowed for debate, whether amendments can be offered, and other matters.


...After a measure passes in the House, it goes to the Senate for consideration. A bill must pass both bodies in the same form before it can be presented to the President for signature into law.

Remember, a rule is a simple resolution. I'm assuming that "other matters" includes "doing an end-run around the Constitution so our weak-kneed members can avoid taking a tough vote."

Meanwhile, I'm not sure why Nancy Pelosi has called a woman's-only meeting of Democrats on Capitol Hill, other than to provide some intrigue to the process as it drags on and on. Yes, CNN is reporting that opponents of reform are close to killing the bill, but both sides are close... although it says a lot about the Democratic state of play that they are desperate to get Dennis Kucinich's vote-flip.

The Hill's health care whip count is here, FDL's is here, and Cost is here.  No matter what the count is, it won't matter until it's over, when either the President will be screwed (bill fails), or we'll all be screwed (bill passes).  Either way, it should be entertaining.

The Health Care Follies Continue

I think today's the big day for the health care reform bill.  I haven't seen the CBO estimate yet, but it's got be coming soon in order to enable a House vote before the end of the week.  The President has made his last public pitch.  And if Pelosi doesn't schedule a vote by tomorrow, then doubt starts to kick in as to whether she can actually get the votes.

Speaking of the President's last health care pitch, this is too funny...

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama's push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Though Canfield's sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she'll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is "racked with worry" about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said "all indications" at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.

"She may be eligible for state Medicaid ... and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. ... In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something," he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

"Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home," he said.

Cleveland Clinic offers personal guides to patients like Canfield who are concerned about payment to try to match them up with programs that can provide full or partial assistance. One option is state Medicaid coverage, which Canfield did not have when she was admitted. Another is charity care that is routinely provided by the hospital, which is a nonprofit. Cleveland Clinic reported providing $99 million in charity care in 2008.

...Anderson said her sister expects to spend at least 28 days in the hospital. She said Canfield has her own cleaning business but does not have any kind of health coverage, adding that for now nobody is paying for her stay at the Cleveland Clinic.

But Sornberger said that even if Canfield doesn't qualify for charity care or Medicaid, "there's probably eight to 10 options that a patient has" to find payment.

What I'm reading here is that Natoma Canfield seems to be a good argument for keeping the current system. Or that while she has problems, they're probably not worth blowing up the current system. And keep in mind, someone at the ever-competent White House thought this would be a good way to make the final sales pitch on health care. If the government runs health care the way the Obama campaign team has run the White House, I'm going to start investing the funeral home business. Heck, Obama even got some opposition among his pre-selected crowd.  Robert Samuelson also did a nice job of tearing down some of the substantive arguments in favor of the bill in his column, which is well worth a read.

Meanwhile, back in the alternate world of Capitol Hill, where Pelosi continues to try and pull in votes, Ramesh Ponnoru makes a good point about the Slaughter Solution, which makes less sense by the day (in addition to being sleazy and borderline unconstitutional)...

Any House Democrat who votes for the rule that allows the Senate bill to be deemed passed will be voting for the Senate bill. A foreseeable consequence of that vote is that the Senate bill may become law while some of the fixes the House votes for do not. It is entirely fair for Republican opponents of any House Democrat who votes for the Slaughter rule to tie him to the Senate bill. Republicans will be able to say, fairly, that such a House Democrat has voted for the Senate bill — kickbacks and all — and tried to hide the fact. Republicans may as well point out now that that's exactly what they're going to do.

That's about right -- and as much as I think former Judge Michael McConnell is right about the issue, I doubt the Supreme Court would invalidate healthcare reform because of Pelosi's gambit (although the awesomeness of such a moment in creating spectacular constitutional chaos almost makes me wish for it).  The real problem for the Democrats is that this looks awful politically -- they're racing to pass the bill, and using every technique possible to justify it.  Even Ezra Klein, who's the left wing blogger version of the Energizer Bunny on healthcare reform, thinks the Slaughter Solution is politically idiotic.  Other liberals are coming up with really bad analogies, like this one from Tim Noah...

As Slate's John Dickerson explained March 10, this would be achieved by a "self-executing rule" that would allow the House to "deem" the Senate bill already passed as it considers the clean-up reconciliation bill containing various corrections demanded by the House and the Obama White House. A sort of virgin birth, if you will, with the Senate cast as Mary, the House cast as Joseph, and health care reform cast as the baby Jesus.

...If this is what it takes to pass health care reform, maybe it's best to avert your gaze as you might do while attending certain rituals of far-flung premodern civilizations. Even better: Do as the Three Wise Men did. Skip labor and delivery and arrive two weeks later to appraise the newborn babe.

Since I'm not Christian, I can avoid being offended at the comparison of healthcare reform to that religion's savior (and even many Democrats should find this formulation problemaic, based on the deification of the President during his campaign... although maybe the bill is now the Son of Obama, which makes the President... my head hurts). As Jim Geraghty notes, the headline to the left isn't exactly what a supporter of the health care reform bill would like to read.  The GOP figured out how bad this looks and is trying to force the Democrats to vote on the gambit, as reported by Michelle Malkin, who also points out that Democrats have another problem -- they're losing support from normally reliable newspaper editorial boards.  That means Obamacare may be losing votes in the moderate-left of center, which is where they need support to pass the bill.

I'd rehash whip counts, but The Hill's running tab is fine for that. FireDogLake is here, and Jay Cost is here. Of course, whip counts don't matter when Dems seemingly flip for no reason at all, like Dan Maffei, although I'm guessing the "pro-village burning" line will find a way into a campaign ad this fall.  As to what's going on now with Pelosi's persuasion, Yuval Levin has a good point...

In their Politico piece noting that Pelosi has declared the reconciliation bill closed, Patrick O’Connor and Jonathan Allen suggest that Pelosi’s announcement means the wheeling and dealing for votes is over, and all that remains is an ideological appeal for votes. But members who were open to such appeals would have been on board with this bill long ago. In fact, what remains are deals outside of the health-care bill. What Pelosi is doing now is offering wavering members a variety of gifts and goodies that will be included in other bills (or in administration actions) between now and the November elections — and especially in this year’s appropriations bills. These deals will be much harder to discern than the crude buy-offs that Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and others obtained for their states in the Senate health-care negotiations. They will no-doubt involve money and other favors for members’ districts or powerful constituents in unrelated bills — from transportation funds to Medicare payment decisions to an assortment of pet projects. And they will need to be delivered regardless of whether Pelosi gets enough members to switch their votes this way to actually pass the bill.

These special dispensations will present themselves in the course of the coming months, but we will probably never have a full picture of what they involve, and what it really took to get “no” votes from last time to switch (assuming any actually do so, of course.) We won’t know, that is, unless political reporters stop covering this week as though it involves a wonky substantive debate among House Democrats and started asking the Speaker and any members who change their votes about just what the “persuasion” process has involved.

I think the process for this bill will end up exposing a lot of those deals, whether the Speaker intended that or not. And the public will be even more offended by Congress' conduct, which should serve everyone well heading into the fall elections.  I'll give the last word to Megan McArdle...

So now I'm thinking about another political problem. Assume this passes; what happens afterward? I don't think that many people believe that the answer is "Nothing: the bill becomes law, and we sing happy smurf songs all the way to the longest life expectancy in the Western world!" Even the bill's proponents expect it will need some follow-up work. But what will that follow-up work look like?

Worst case scenario for Democrats: a wave of public outrage like the one that followed Cat Care, aka The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (and its step-child, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989). This strikes me as quite likely, actually. If this passes, yes, you will have AARP support and a wave of positive coverage from 90% liberal media. These things did not save Cat Care from a wave of angry public protest. I mean, really angry.

...My nightmare is that they repeal everything except the really popular thing, which is to say the ban on rescission and exclusions for pre-existing conditions. These are basically free, and they're by far the most popular part of the legislation, as far as I can tell.

I'm not exactly a fan of rescission, and to the extent that it is being abused by insurance companies, they deserve whatever regulatory penalties they get. But without rescission, the natural thing to do is to wait until you get sick, and then lie on your insurance application. Like bans on pre-existing conditions, this leads to the classic "insurance death spiral" where the only people who want to buy the insurance are the people who expect to need more care than the cost of the premiums, causing the pool to shrink and the prices to rise.

...Would Obama dare veto it? When there's no longer an unpopular Democratic Congress to hide behind? One hopes, for the good of the country. But while so far the president has been enthusiastically urging members to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team, I've seen little indication that he's willing to risk his own job.

So what she's saying is... we're all screwed. Woo-hoo!

The HealthCare Follies Continue

If I could make sense of the health care mess.... well, maybe I can, but let's start with the storyline.

First, over the weekend, the Democrats announced that they were pretty much giving up on getting everyone in Bart Stupak's coalition to come back into the fold...

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

They may get some of stupak's coalition, but not all.  Stupak's more electrifying charge (that Democrats actually argued that the amendment created more costs due to more babies being born) is apparently an argument he's heard from individual Democrats, but not the House leadership. It's still pretty appalling, and sure as hell sounds like a death panel, as Allahpundit noted. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who previously backed the House bill, have now jumped ship. Perhaps they don't believe the Senate simply made a typo in another provision that could lead to publicly-funded abortions...

Liberals wanted to expand the reach of community health centers, which have provided low-cost health care to people in underserved areas since the 1960s. And they wanted the health care bill to commit $7 billion for these health centers. The moderates agreed, and new language was hurriedly added to the Senate bill.


"This is all stuff that was inserted late at night and they were trying to reach a final agreement" on the bill, says Timothy Jost, a professor and health law expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Unfortunately, no one remembered to write in an explicit provision explaining that this $7 billion in spending for the health care centers would be subject to all the usual restrictions on how federal money is spent. One of those restrictions, the so-called Hyde Amendment, prohibits most federal funding for abortions.


..."It seems that this is something that slipped by," Jost says, "because elsewhere in the bill they made [funding] subject to [the Hyde amendment]."


And that's how a silly slip-up allowed the anti-abortion forces to issue the dubious claim that this bill will unleash a flood of federally-funded abortions. But though the Democrats' omission makes it easier for anti-abortion rights groups to claim the community health care ceneters funding could pay for abortions, it doesn't make it true.


Community health centers don't perform abortions. They never have—not even in the 1960s and 1970s before the Hyde Amendment was introduced. And they don't plan to in the future. In a statement issued last week, the clinics' umbrella organization, the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC), said that "health centers do not plan to, nor are they seeking to, become providers of abortion." And Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has pledged that none of the money from the health care bill will be used to fund abortions at community health centers.

The problem is that leaving a loophole like that is an invitation for someone to abuse in the future.  None of the points mentioned above prevent someone from using the loophole to fund abortions in the future. Even if you agree that it's a typo, then it brings to mind the question of why we should trust Congress enough to believe there aren't additional "typos" that will come to light later, when they're rushing to try and pass a bill before the President heads overseas (and before their members go home for an Easter recess that might not be so restful). Maybe they can use Nancy Pelosi's latest stupid argument in favor of the bill -- unemployed artists will no longer have to find jobs to finance their health care, since the government will subsidize it, allowing them to not work and pursue their life's dream!  Hey, I can finally puruse my dream of being an "artist" who watches TV all day!  But that's all backdrop for the real remaining issue -- the vote count.

The White House is confident it will have passage of the week -- so confident that two major advisors essentially guaranteed it on the Sunday talk shows.  Of course, the House Majority Whip (you know, the guy who actually has to count the votes for the Democrats) says they don't have the votes yet.  Which means the White House is still looking for votes, which might be why they're suddenly backtracking on the President's pledge not to have any more special deals in the legislation...

Still seeking votes for his proposed health care overhaul, President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation whose future will be decided in coming days.


...Clinching support, though, might require Obama to back away from his insistence that senators purge the legislation of a number of lawmakers' special deals.


Taking a new position, Axelrod said the White House only objects to state-specific arrangements, such as an increase in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, ridiculed as the "Cornhusker Kickback." That's being cut, but provisions that could affect more than one state are OK, Axelrod said.


That means deals sought by senators from Montana and Connecticut would be fine — even though Gibbs last week singled them out as items Obama wanted removed. There was resistance, however, from two committee chairman, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and the White House has apparently backed down.


Axelrod said the principles the White House wants to apply include "Are these applicable to all states? Even if they do not qualify now, would they qualify under certain sets of circumstances?"

Somewhere, Jim Geraghty is updating his line that all of Barack Obama's promises have an expiration date. However, the real issue is why Gibbs and Axelrod would issue such blanket guarantees.  I think there's a combination of two things going on here.  First, they have some degree of confidence (hopeful confidence? desperate confidence?) that Nancy Pelosi will get the votes somehow, despite the loss of at least a few Stupak bloc voters.  The second issue is that they're trying to create a sense of inevitability and momentum for the bill -- it can't be stopped, so people (or at least, wavering House Democrats) should get on board.  I think it's a mix of both, really, but the question House Democrats have to be asking is whether they can really trust this Administration to get the pulse of America right.

Axelrod seems to saying that he wants the GOP to make the fall elections about the health care bill.  I think what House members realize is that the GOP does not have to do it -- the Tea Parties, the independants, and the core GOP base are already making it about the bill, without much in the way of urging from the GOP leadership.  The rebellion against the health care reform bills and process wasn't coordinated from above, much as the Obama Administration fervently wishes it were.  The fact that it comes from the grass roots means that the arguments Axelrod is making will be arguments that Democratic candidates will be having with constituents as much as with opponents.  And when you're arguing with people, it's tough to get their vote.

And this is before we get to the optics of the situation -- and here's new Senator Scott Brown,who is the walking, talking symbol of what this debate has cost Democrats, delivering Saturday's GOP response to the President's weekly radio address...

Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar healthcare legislation.


So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the president still hasn’t gotten the message.


Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the healthcare bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.


And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises.


They pledged transparency. Instead, we have a healthcare bill tainted by secrecy, concealed cost, and full of backroom deals – and that’s just not right. They should do better. The American people expect more.

Let the vote-counting continue. Firedoglake's estimate is here. Jay Cost is here. The Hill is here. I have no count, but a prediction that the bill with either pass by a small majority, or go down in flames as moderate Dems bail and are followed by liberals seeking to make a statement on the bill not going far enough.

At the end of the day, I doubt the bill dies, even if it doesn't pass this week. The Obama Administration needs a win, no matter how many votes this costs them in the fall. I think the longer this carries on, the worse things get for them, and I don't just mean this fall. The chicanery being used to push this bill through... well, let's just say a declaration of Shenanigans is coming.



Get your brooms.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Interesting nugget from a Time article that talks about Chuckles Schumer and Dick Durbin fighting over Harry Reid's position as Senate Majority Leader, even before Reid possibly loses his election this fall...

The first time leadership aides noticed something was amiss was during the health care debate last November, when Schumer made some notable overtures to the progressive wing of the party. He'd previously taken flack from progressives for his championing of Kirsten Gillibrand, a moderate Dem from upstate New York who was appointed to Hillary Clinton's seat. Just after Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus passed a bipartisan health reform bill out of his committee, Schumer demanded that the public option — a liberal provision that provided government competition to private insurers — be put back in. Reid initially bowed to Schumer's pressure but weeks later had to drop the provision in order to secure all 60 Democratic votes to overcome a Republican filibuster threat. That delay would come back to haunt the Democrats after the New Year, when Scott Brown's surprise victory in the Massachusetts Senate race cost them their critical 60th vote.

I'm thinking that if health care reform fails, the Tea Party movement should send thank you notes to Schumer for being an ambitious jerk. On more substantive matters, The Hill has another Whip count, with the expected number of no votes on health care from Dems to be 25 as of now; if my math is correct, Pelosi can't afford to lose more than 12-15 more Dems or the game is over. In other words, Bart Stupak's coalition will probably decide it. Unless, of course, more Democrats follow the lead of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is now threatening to torpedo the bill unless their concerns over illegal immigrants get addressed as part of the package...

Since last fall, Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) members have kept quiet, at least publicly, about their objections to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill.


The Senate language would prohibit illegal immigrants’ buying healthcare coverage from the proposed health exchanges. The House-passed bill isn’t as restrictive, but it does — like the Senate bill — bar illegal immigrants from receiving federal subsidies to buy health insurance.


Hispanic Democrats say they haven’t moved from their stance that they will not vote for a healthcare bill containing the Senate’s prohibitions.


...On Wednesday, members of the CHC privately acknowledged they’ve told their leaders that anyone who is assuming they’ve backed away from their position is in for a rude awakening.


“The [Hispanic] Caucus didn’t want to raise it as an issue too early,” one Hispanic Democrat said Wednesday. “But it’s real. It’s a problem.”


Those alarm bells have apparently been heard. CHC Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said she and others have, on behalf of two dozen Hispanic Democrats, been in discussions with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other leaders about how to resolve the matter.


“And we will continue having discussions,” Velazquez said.


However, it is unlikely that the Senate will be able to change the immigration provisions under reconciliation rules. And even if it is deemed possible, there may not be enough support in either chamber of Congress to do it.


Not every member of the CHC would stand in the way of healthcare over the immigration issue. As a House leader, it would be unlikely for Becerra to vote against the president’s signature domestic policy priority. And centrist Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said the Senate language is “not a deal-killer” for him.

Somewhere, Congressman Joe Wilson is laughing.  That last statement by Cuellar probably gives away the game -- as noted by Ed Morrissey, the Caucus members probably just want an assurance from President Obama that he will indeed take up immigration reform this year, as he promised last year. But if the bill starts to look unlikely to pass, the votes against it could snowball based on people suddenly discovering "principled" reasons for opposition.

Meanwhile, perhaps we're getting closer to the final bill, or to a real end to it, as Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer have now canceled all Committee hearings and gone behind closed doors with the party leadership, providing us with more of the transparent, open government promised by the President. Jake Tapper says a compromise bill is close to being complete.

Maybe they have the votes and are doing a little champagne toast in Ted Kennedy's honor or something, but I tend to think that if they had the votes, a vote would be scheduled before another Democratic congressman melts down in an ethics scandal (or worse, disclosed more details about what goes on in the House gym showers).

So do they have the votes?  My thought is that if they did, we wouldn't see ideas like this get floated...

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.


Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it, " she said.

And I thought reconciliation was a bad idea politically. By contrast, this is toxic. The Heritage Foundation refers to this nicely as "procedural fraud." Forget the optics of the issue -- this is one sure way to guarantee that we'll be debating the legitimacy of the bill as law forever. In their fervor to pass the bill, Democrats are undermining Congress and the legitimacy of the legislative process. What's really bad is that I don't think I'm exaggerating, if they pursue this latest procedural flimflam. Deeming the bill passed -- I'm sure the Democrats will be chagrined when this gets used against them some day in the future.

As to whether they have the votes, Pelosi has already indicated the White House's March 18th deadline may not be workable.  Michael Barone says the votes don't look like they are there yet. We'll see if that changes, or if the Dems merely change the rules again -- maybe the Democrats will find a way to claim that a minority is a majority.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Instapundit points out how Drudge is having fun with the so-called health care endgame.  I do think the most telling part of the continuing mess that is health care reform comes from this quote from Nancy Pelosi...

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.


But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

(hat tip: Peter Suderman) It says a lot about the bill and/or the Democrats' communication abilities that they can spend a year or so discussing the concept, several months discussing the actual bills, and think that the key is to stop talking about it so people will understand it.

As to the actual endgame... there's multiple folks trying to figure out the voting breakdown.  Jay Cost at RCP has been running numbers, FireDogLake has a running whip count, and National Journal is keeping track as well.  I think two things are indisputable -- the fate of the bill lies with approximately 40-45 House Democrats (including Bart Stupak's crew), and Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes yet.  The fact that she's pushing back on the latest White House deadline says a lot...

The WH is anxious to get health care passed by Easter recess, just like they were anxious to get it finished by Aug. recess, then by Thanksgiving, then by Chirstmas. And Pelosi has had enough: She told WH CoS Rahm Emanuel to stop pressuring the House to pass the Senate bill by March 18, before Pres. Obama leaves for an overseas trip, according to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who sat in on the leadership meeting at the WH yesterday.


And House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer echoed the sentiment, pushing back on a March 18 vote. House Dems have yet to schedule any votes, lending credence to the notion that they don't have the votes yet.

The problem for Pelosi and the House Dems who might be reluctant to vote on the bill boils down to three points.  First, they don't yet know what the Senate will do, even though they're getting assurances that the Senate will pass a reconciliation bill with a bare majority, but they don't know if they can trust that this will happen, especially sicne no one has seen a new reconciliation bill yet.  Second, the Stupak abortion language issue remains in flux -- one day Stupak is saying they can get a deal, another day he's saying that he won't agree to deals to fix the bill in the future, which seems to be the only way to do it (my personal belief is that Stupak and his unknown posse of approximately 12 really want to vote for the bill and may do so ultimately, but I'm sensing that this is more than just posturing on their part -- if the public opinion doesn't move toward passing this bill, they may decided that they'll vote against it on principle just to be part of the majority).

But the third issue is the one that will ultimately decide the contest -- public opinion.  Public opinion is decidedly against the the reconciliation process the Senate may use, but seemingly split on everything else...

A new Associated Press-GfK Poll finds a widespread hunger for improvements to the health care system, which suggests President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have a political opening to push their plan. Half of all Americans say health care should be changed a lot or "a great deal," and only 4 percent say it shouldn't be changed at all.


But they don't like the way the debate is playing out in Washington, where GOP lawmakers unanimously oppose the Obama-backed legislation and Democrats are struggling to pass it by themselves with narrow House and Senate majorities.


More than four in five Americans say it's important that any health care plan have support from both parties. And 68 percent say the president and congressional Democrats should keep trying to cut a deal with Republicans rather than pass a bill with no GOP support.


Leaders of both parties in Congress say that's not how it's going to work out. After a year of off-and-on negotiations, Republicans adamantly oppose Obama's plans. The White House and Democratic leaders say it's now-or-never for a health care overhaul, which would cover an additional 30 million Americans, require almost everyone to buy health insurance and impose new restrictions on insurance companies.


The Democrats' plan relies on parliamentary rules that bar Senate filibusters. That would enable Senate Democrats to pass a companion health care bill — which House Democrats are demanding — with a simple majority. Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 votes, one shy of the number needed to stop GOP filibusters.


The new poll underscores Obama's struggles to wrest control of the health care debate from Republicans, who couch his efforts as a government takeover and costly intrusion into private lives.


Many of his allies are baffled, because Americans clearly want change, and some of the individual components of the Democrats' health care agenda seem popular. Moreover, the public has not embraced the Republicans' overall approach to legislating, giving lower approval ratings to GOP lawmakers than to Democrats, although both parties fare badly.


In the AP-GfK Poll, 43 percent of those surveyed said Obama and Congress should keep working to pass health care this year, while 41 percent said they should start from scratch. On Capitol Hill, the Republicans favor that new-start approach; Democrats say that's just a way to stall the effort to death.


Sandy Stemm of Springfield, Ore., would seem the ideal target for Obama's appeal. She's a Democrat and former bakery manager who recently lost her job and health insurance.


But Stemm, 47, doesn't like the idea of congressional Democrats going it alone on health care.


"I think it's important to come to an agreement," she said in a telephone interview. "We're all in this together, whether we're Democrat or Republican."


John DeHority, a Democrat from Rochester, N.Y., supports Obama's effort and thinks Republicans have "made a travesty of the process." But he suggested the GOP is winning the political battle.


"I think passing the bill in its current form would be political suicide for Democrats," said DeHority, 56, a researcher in health care imaging. He said he thinks the proposed changes would fail because they would not control costs, and "Democrats will take the fall for that."

See, that last bit is what Democrats need to worry about, unless they've now decided to accept that their political annihilation will be be okay because the bill has passed -- the downside being that unlike other entitlements, the lack of broad support for this bill might mean effects to repeal it actually gain steam.  One of the biggest problems with this bill is that the best selling point Democrats have for liberals (and it's one that some liberals, like Dennis Kucinich, aren't buying) is that it gets their foot in the door toward eventually nationalizing health care.  But passing an unpopular program that ends up being more costly rather than less costly that may be coupled with cuts and changes to people's access to health care isn't likely to drive people to want more government intervention -- it's likely to make them want less. 

And the idea that the public will forget about the crazy process used to pass the bill -- pass one bill, then use reconciliation to fix the bill -- is incredibly obtuse, even for Washington.  Part of what drives anti-incumbent and anti-Washington sentiment is the idea that politicians change the rules whenever they can't get what they want,  In this case, they'd be changing the rules to push through something that has less popularity than Tiger Woods -- even the people who like the bill aren't rushing out to passionately defend it.  Keith Hennessey summarizes my thoughts nicely...

I am struck by the enormous gap between the two parties on the strategic calculation being made by the President and Democratic Congressional leaders. If you set aside your policy views, do you think the current path makes strategic sense for the majority? Almost every Republican insider I meet shakes his or head in befuddlement and says no, I just don’t get why they’re doing this.


Dan Meyer was Speaker Gingrich’s Chief of Staff in the mid-90’s, and later served as the head of Legislative Affairs for President Bush (43). He and I survived the 95-96 government shutdown conflict between Congressional Republicans and President Clinton. I worked for Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici at the time. Dan made a comparison the other day. Imagine, he said, right after the government had reopened in January of 1996, after Republicans had been getting hammered every day for a month, if I had run up to you and said, “I’ve got a great idea! Let’s shut it down again!” You’d think I was crazy.


That’s what this feels like. The President and his allies could now quite easily enact a massive expansion of Medicaid and S-CHIP, paid for by a subset of the offsets in these bills. I would oppose such a bill, but it would be a legislative slam dunk with few political costs (for them) outside of a disappointed left wing. To my chagrin they might pick up a few Republican votes. And yet they press onward with a super-high risk strategy. This is a classic bird-in-the-hand tradeoff.


...The leaders may be narrowly self-interested and able to exert tremendous party discipline on those with different interests. Legislative failure could harm a rank-and-file Democrat from a purple district, but it would be devastating to the President and the Speaker, who are judged on their ability to lead others. We know that some Congressional Democrats don’t like this bill as a policy matter. We know that some are afraid of the political consequences of voting aye. Yet many in both groups appear willing to vote aye.

I also like William Jacobson's claim that this bill is now Obama's Stalingrad, not his Waterloo, although I guess that would make the GOP the USSR. I would say something about what that makes Obama, but I don't want to trigger Godwin's Law.

Bottom line? There are less than 240 days until the November election. That much is certain. Everything else is a guess.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Andy McCarthy worries that the Democrats will ignore public opinion and enact Obamacare...

I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that "reconciliation," if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership's statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I'm glad Republicans have held firm, but let's not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you've calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.

Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We're wired to think that everyone plays by the usual rules of politics — i.e., if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftists who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that's what everybody in their position does. But they won't. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don't think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that's why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that's the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.

Ed Morrissey thinks this worry is overblown...

They didn’t gain the majority by elected over 300 cardboard cutouts of Nancy Pelosi as Representatives and Senators. While Andy is spot-on about Pelosi and her clique being descendants of the New Left radicals of the 1960s (as is Barack Obama), that’s not true for a large portion of their caucus, especially those representing red districts and red states. Not only is political suicide much more likely for them than it is for Pelosi, Anthony Weiner, Jarrold Nadler, et al, they’re temperamentally different from the leadership clique as well.

That doesn’t mean that they can’t get bulldozed into compliance, but it does make it a more difficult proposition for Pelosi to hold her caucus together. We’re already seeing signs of it splintering, and as this effort gets closer to the midterm elections, that will increase proportionately. Blue Dogs are already unhappy with the direction of ObamaCare — and so are progressives, but for diametrically opposed reasons. The summit may have helped to pull recalcitrant moderates in line, but Democrats got punked at the televised spectacle and have no fig leaf to wear to support a radical mechanism in pushing through a radical bill.

I don't want to rely on the Democrats acting logically at this point, although I think Morrissey's point is actually pretty strong. At this point, I tend to think moderate Democrats don't want to to have to take a vote on health care reform. They just wish the damn thing would go away and die, so that their political careers don't. Many on the left are making the counter-argument that it would be worse not to pass a bill at this point, which if true is absolutely hilarious to me. I'm not sure how that works -- passing what the majority of the public perceive as a crappy bill and what the left perceives as insufficient will somehow keep Democrats from losing as badly? I found this little quote from Juan Williams of NPR, appearing on Fox News Sunday, illuminating...

But not coming from the -- the difference here is that Rahm Emanuel is a hardball political player. And his attitude towards the health care reform deal, towards cap-and-trade and these other things that have not come to pass, is, Don't worry about public opinion. We've got a Democratic majority on the Hill. We'll focus on the Democratic majority. We'll focus on the process and we will get it done.

And the big failure on health care, as we've just discussed in the previous panel, is the American people aren't eating the dog food. So if that's the case, you've got to go out there and sell, and you've got to do it effectively.

Williams is clearly discussing the issue from the perspective of whether Rahm Emanuel gets to fall on his sword if health care fails. But it's more telling that Williams, who is a committed liberal, analogizes the Democrats health care reform package to dog food. And how you can't get the public to eat dog food. It reminds us of the Simpsons episode where Bart gives up his dog, Santa's Little Helper, in exchange for a brilliant superdog named Laddie. Bart soon realizes he wants his old dog back and gives Laddie away as well, but bursts into tears telling his family that he wants to get back Santa's Little Helper. Homer comforts Bart and tries to encourage his son to take action instead of crying...

Homer: "Well, crying isn't gonna bring him back, unless your tears smell like dog food. So you can either sit there crying and eating can after can of dog food until your tears smell enough like dog food to make your dog come back -- or you can go out there and find your dog."

Bart: (drying tears) "You're right! I'll do it." (sprints out of the kitchen)

Homer: (upset) "Rats. I almost had him eating dog food!"

Back to the issue at hand. I think the Beltway opinion on this reflects the point that plenty of Democrats don't want to deal with this issue any more. I think President knew that, and tried the summit in an attempt to change the narrative, if not shift the momentum entirely (and yes, I'm aware of the fact that if use the word "gamechange", it would tie the record for most overused political cliches in one paragraph). That didn't succeed; even though the health care plan got more support than it has since November in the Rasmussen poll, it's still sucking wind with very passionate opponents at 43% versus passionate supporters at 22%. Yet the Democratic leadership is putting on a public face of insistence that they will move this bill through to signature. And the Dems even picked up a vote today, with the resignation of a GOP Congressman making it necessary for Pelosi to only net 216 votes instead of 217.

The real question is whether that public face is a bluff, or reflects the real determination that they can and will get something done. I believe the arm-twisting has started in private and public, and will continue all month until the Dems can get a deal. What's working against a deal is the fact that everyone is also setting the table to be able to blame someone else if it falls through -- the Senate will blame the House, the House will blame the Senate, the President will blame both houses, and all three will blame the GOP. At the same time, more people in the middle are supporting the idea of starting over. Here's Warren Buffett...



There's the opening for the President, if he wants to take it. Perhaps that's why we're seeing some movement toward a smaller bill now...

President Obama will soon propose a health care bill that will be "much smaller" than the House bill but "big enough" to put the country on a "path" toward health care reform, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.

"In a matter of days, we will have a proposal," Pelosi said, pointing to Obama's forthcoming bill.

"It will be a much smaller proposal than we had in the House bill because that's where we can gain consensus. But it will be big enough to put us on a path of affordable, quality health care for all Americans that holds insurance companies accountable."

A senior administration official told Fox Obama's proposal will be introduced Wednesday.

Melody Barnes, a top Obama domestic policy adviser, did not dispute Pelosi's characterization of the new plan as smaller in scope -- and quite possibly in cost -- than either the House or Senate health care bills.

The real question is whather such a smaller bill is actually a real effort at moderation or a political prop designed to get moderate Dems on board. My guess is the latter, because I doubt Pelosi would stay in line if it wasn't sufficient to the left. This thing isn't dead yet -- I get the feeling that we need to sweat out everyone of the 247 days between now and November 3rd before we can feel like Obamacare has gone by the wayside.