Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told Greg Sargent today he'd be willing to introduce the public option amendment. But if Durbin's comments are any indication, it won't get very far.
"We have to move this forward. We know the Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, and some of them may be appealing to Democrats, but we have to urge them to stick with the bill," he said.
That's upsetting to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is pushing senators to publicly support using reconciliation for a public option. Adam Green, the founder of the PCCC, tells TPMDC he's about to launch an offensive against Durbin.
"We're going to make it radioactive for him to whip against the public option," he said. The PCCC will target Durbin with web videos. It will also, Green said, blast emails to its supporters -- specifically the ones whose senators have signed on to the push -- asking them to write to their senators and demand they stand their ground.
So Sanders proposes introducing a public option amendment to the reconciliation bill, and Durbin (who was supposedly for the public option) proposes whipping Democrats against it... Even though Sanders and 40 other Democratic Senators (including Harry Reid!) have all said they're ready to vote for the public option in reconciliation.
So what are we to think? And what are we to do?
I called Harry Reid's office. All the lines at his DC office were full, so I then called the Las Vegas office. Someone answered, and I asked if Reid is changing his tune on the public option.
The staffer told me that Harry Reid supports the public option and will vote for it if the public option amendment gets a vote in reconciliation. Wait... HUH??!! So Durbin is moving to the right of Reid on the public option?
Maybe, or maybe there are some inside games happening. Perhaps Dick Durbin's just floating this as a possibility, or perhaps Harry Reid knows that he needs to stick with the public option to keep the Democratic base here in Nevada on board with him. Whatever is actually happening, we need to kill this talk of killing the public option.
And whatever else you do today, please call Harry Reid's Las Vegas office at 702-388-5020 NOW to thank him for moving health care reform forward and supporting the public option, and ask him not to give up on either! It's urgent that we pass health care reform and pass the best package possible. And since we all know that the best package possible includes a public option, we shouldn't give up on it just yet. Let's also make sure Harry Reid doesn't give up.
• Eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid; • Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap; • Strengthening the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families; • Strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid; • Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans; • Improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.
Despite the recent surge of support in the Senate for a government-run health insurance option, President Obama chose not to include one of the most popular elements of reform in the plan he is presenting to a bipartisan group of lawmakers Thursday.
The Obama plan explicitly bridges the differences between Senate and House legislation on issues both large and small, but on the public option -- which is included in the House bill, but not in the Senate's -- Obama is entirely silent.
OK, so where do I begin? First off, I am glad Obama isn't giving up on health care. It needs to be done, it needs to be done this year, and it needs to be done ASAP.
It's good to see the provision blacking egregious insurance rate hikes in the proposal. That is absolutely necessary.
However, it sucks to see Obama leave out one of the most effective ways to rein in the HMO madness. Why no public option, Mr. President? It's been gaining momentum lately. At least 18 Senators have signed the pledge already to include it, Chuck Schumer is pushing to include it in the reconciliation package, and Harry Reid is ready to start the reconciliation process to pass it.
So why won't Obama advocate for it... Especially when Kathleen Sebelius said last week that the Administration would push for it if there was an opening in the Senate? Well, guess what? The opening is NOW!
But fear not, all is not lost. The public option is clearly not "dead".
Indeed, after months of watching Obama say generally that he supports the public option while doing little to see it implemented into law, backers of the idea were unsurprised it was left out of his final offer.
"We didn't expect one," said Darcy Burner, head of the Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation.
Last week's surge had fired up a demoralized Democratic base, giving the health care reform effort an extra push as Obama tried to drag it across the finish line. But if the final bill is to include a public option, leaders in Congress and outside organizations advocating on its behalf will need to do it without Obama. "Congress and the people of the United States will have to lead in truly taking on the insurance companies," Burner said.
Obama's decision not to push for the public option does not preclude it from being included. Indeed, any member of the Senate can introduce it as an amendment to a package moving through under the rules of reconciliation, a parliamentary process that precludes a filibuster.
So moving forward, we have a game plan. Get Congress to agree on passing the Senate health care bill with the reconciliation fix. Urge Democratic Congressional leaders to stay strong on the public option. Push Obama to push the public option. And hopefully, we'll end up with a good bill.
In another surprising step forward for the public option, Senator Harry Reid’s office says that if a final decision is made to pass health reform via reconciliation, the Majority Leader would support holding a reconciliation vote on the public option.
With more and more Senators signing on to the letter urging Reid to hold an up or down vote on the public option under reconciliation rules, Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau sends over a statement signaling Reid’s qualified support for the move:
"Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition. That is why he included the measure in his original health care proposal.
"If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes."
This is BIG news. Until now, Reid has been hesitant (and understandably so) about using reconciliation on health care. It's complicated, difficult, and very time-consuming. But with Republicans unwilling to agree to even a final vote on health care reform and an increasing number of progressive Democrats unwilling (and rightfully so) to sacrifice their principles for just any bill, this is the only realistic possibility left to pass the bill.
So now, Senate parliamentarians and Senate Democratic leaders will have to figure out how to properly use reconciliation to get health care done. And in the mean time, House Democratic leaders will have to ensure they still have at least 218 confirmed votes for both the Senate bill and the new reconciliation "fix" to the Senate bill while President Obama helps round up support in both houses of Congress and among the American people.
So why should Harry Reid? Take a look at these brand new Research 2000 poll numbers... And if you have a chance to see President Obama and Senator Reid tomorrow, tell them that they don't need to be afraid to do the right thing. Apparently, we "get it" and we'll support them on finishing health care reform and getting it done right.
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of buying into a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get – that would compete with private health insurance plans?
FAVOR
OPPOSE
NOT SURE
ALL
56%
38%
6%
MEN
52%
43%
5%
WOMEN
60%
33%
7%
DEMOCRATS
88%
10%
2%
REPUBLICANS
18%
71%
11%
INDEPENDENTS
61%
35%
4%
WHITE
50%
44%
6%
LATINO
74%
17%
9%
BLACK
83%
11%
6%
OBAMA VOTERS
75%
13%
12%
DISTRICT 1
64%
32%
4%
DISTRICT 2
48%
45%
7%
DISTRICT 3
57%
37%
6%
QUESTION: What would make you more likely to vote for Democrats in the 2010 elections: If they pass health care reform that includes a public health insurance option but gets zero Republicans votes OR if they pass health care reform without a public option but with some Republican votes?
OPTION
GOP VOTES
NOT SURE
ALL
53%
40%
7%
MEN
49%
45%
6%
WOMEN
57%
35%
8%
DEMOCRATS
89%
8%
3%
REPUBLICANS
11%
80%
9%
INDEPENDENTS
56%
33%
11%
WHITE
47%
46%
7%
LATINO
74%
20%
6%
BLACK
81%
12%
7%
OBAMA VOTERS
77%
11%
12%
It's been widely reported that as Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid had well over a majority of the Senate committed to voting for a public health insurance option last year. But the public option was removed from consideration in an attempt to get a super-majority of 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Now, Senate Democrats will likely use a procedure called “reconciliation” – which only needs a simple majority – to pass the final elements of health care reform.
QUESTION: If Senate Democrats use “reconciliation” to pass the final elements of health care reform with a simple majority, should Harry Reid include a public health insurance option in the bill?
YES
NO
NOT SURE
ALL
52%
41%
7%
MEN
47%
45%
8%
WOMEN
57%
37%
6%
DEMOCRATS
88%
8%
4%
REPUBLICANS
8%
82%
10%
INDEPENDENTS
58%
33%
9%
WHITE
45%
48%
7%
LATINO
78%
16%
6%
BLACK
83%
7%
10%
OBAMA VOTERS
73%
16%
11%
QUESTION: If the Senate passes a health care reform bill that you consider to be beneficial to your family, would you object to the Senate's use of “reconciliation” rules to pass that bill with a majority vote, or not?
So at last night's State of the Union speech, President Obama signaled he would not give up on comprehensive health care reform. Good. Our long-term economic viability depends on getting health care done soon and done right.
And again yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled that the easiest way to get health care reform done is by the President, the House, and the Senate agreeing to two companion bills for passage: the Senate bill that passed last month and a companion bill done through reconciliation that fixes the problems in the Senate bill (like the excise tax and the "Nebraska & Louisiana Purchase"). It seems Obama may now be open to this, since he does want "the whole enchilada" done this year. However, it also seems Pelosi will need to win over Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus, and convince them that health care reform means long-term economic stability. And we'll need to convince all of them that the only way this health care reform can be trusted by most Americans is if it's complete with a public option for us to choose.
Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.
So will it actually happen this time? Will LGBTQ Americans be allowed to serve openly in the military once and for all? No one knows for sure, but at least we now have an opening to take action and get Congress to do something about it.
Later in the day, I'll have more thoughts on the SOTU speech, the fallout, and what happens next. This will be incredibly important, especially for us in Nevada. Harry Reid's political future depends on it. Dina Titus and Shelley Berkley will be critical for whatever next happens in the House. And of course, we progressives will need a game plan for holding the President's feet to the fire and making sure he delivers on all these promises.
So what exactly happened on Saturday? Well, Dina Titus kicked off her 2010 reelection campaign. She told us she isn't taking anything for granted, but she is hopeful we'll do again what we did in 2008.
She did mention the Massachusetts special election that went horribly wrong this month, but still congratulated all of us here who made calls to MA for the election. And while she did say it will be tougher to get anything sent to the President's desk to be signed into law, she will be working her hardest to get something done on the economy and bring more jobs to Southern Nevada. Oh yes, it looks like her 2010 theme will be all about jobs and the economy.
That's good. But if anything was a little disappointing for me, it would be what Dina said on health care. She said she'd like to see some bill on the President's desk this year, but she seemed resigned to the "likelihood" it will be a limited bill only covering "health insurance reforms" (like ending preexisting condition discrimination and requiring HMOs to spend more revenue on patient care). She mentioned something about the American people "not wanting 2,000 page bills and confusing processes and backdoor negotiations"... I understand that, but it seemed she was using all of this to refer to the reconciliation process and I disagree with Dina on that.
While people are frustrated about where the health care debate has gone, most of us don't want to see the whole thing sidelined or reduced to just a few insurance reforms. We want comprehensive reform, and we don't mind them using the perfectly legal and perfectly ethical path of reconciliation to pass a full package with the public option and with the Medicare buy-in. (Ironically, these are the most popular reforms!) I chatted for a few minutes with Gavin, one of her fantastic campaign staffers, afterward and I told him that we're not upset over her "doing too much". If anything, we want her and Harry Reid to do MORE and we'll fully support them if they keep their eyes on the prize and pass comprehensive reform with the public option and with the Medicare buy-in.
Otherwise, I overall liked what Dina said on Saturday. She knows that we can't afford any more Wall Street fat cat corporate bailouts, and that Congress needs to instead focus on job creation for all of us "Main Street folk". She seems ready to take on the Republicans (again), and I feel ready to help her do so (again). And perhaps when she agrees to that better health care option, I'll throw in some extra change here.
So the 2010 campaign is officially on. Dina's running again, and I wish her the best of luck. And as long as she shows some leadership, shows some real backbone, and fights as hard as she can for Nevada's working families, I'll do my part to make sure she can keep up the good work in 2011. :-)
If Nancy Pelosi is willing to stop with the "Chicken Little" games and forge a game plan for finishing health care reform, then there's still hope. Now we just have to convince Harry Reid to ignore the naysayers and move forward.
At this point it seems the best option is for the House to pass what the Senate passed last month, then finish it off with both chambers of Congress moving forward with a reconciliation bill including things like the public option that most Americans want. Nancy Pelosi gets this, so we just need for Reid and Obama to get it as well.
I don't know what's in Obama's head right now, but judging from the phone call I just had with one of Reid's Las Vegas staffers he's open to it. The staffer was very friendly with me and appreciated my call of support and my urge for Reid to keep moving forward on health care, so long as he includes the public option and the Medicare buy-in, and uses reconciliation to do it if necessary.
So if you can, please call Harry Reid's office and tell them this:
Americans need real reform and access to affordable healthcare. We can move in the right direction with RECONCILIATION.
What can we pass through reconciliation? The public option. The Medicare expansion. The Medicaid expansion.
And what about the Senate bill as it currently stands? It might not pass the House because of the excise tax on Cadillac Plans, and over 190 House members are against this tax. It's why we need to PUSH for reconciliation to let Democrats know that we support it, and will back them to the hilt on real health care reform.
Let's wipe the grin off those Republicans' faces by showing them that Democrats CAN and WILL go for RECONCILIATION.
We'll deliver your message, loud and clear, to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid in D.C.!
Harry Reid's Offices to Call
Carson City 600 East William Street, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-7343 / Fax: 775-883-1980
Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse and Federal Building 400 South Virginia Street, Suite 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 / Fax: 775-686-5757
Washington 528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) -Restricted to calls originating from area codes 775 and 702
The only thing I differ on is that the Senate bill doesn't need to be scrapped. The House can pass it, so long as a companion reconciliation bill with the public option and Medicare buy-in is done ASAP. Of course, I also wouldn't mind scrapping the Senate bill altogether if it means we'll only see good reforms (like the new insurance regulations and Medicare/Medicaid expansions) without the HMO & PhRMA bailouts. I'm just saying that as long as we either see health care done, done right, and done soon with things that people actually want, we can turn these lemons into good lemonade that people will appreciate. :-)
We've been consumed by it all year... And it looks like we'll still have to be dealing with it in 2010. The health care debate has taken some interesting twists and turns ever since President Obama was inaugurated early this year. And when Arlen Specter switches parties, Al Franken was seated, and Democrats finally had "60 votes" (at least on paper) in the Senate, it seemed like universal health care was a go...
But was it ever really? Now that the Senate bill is passed, a real debate has opened on what to demand out of the final bill, whether to support the final bill at all, and how to work with Democratic leaders (including President Obama and Senator Reid) from now on. So considering how important this is nationally, as well as how big of a role Nevada has played in the health care debate with Harry Reid often taking center stage (just before the 2010 Election), I figured I just couldn't leave this off the list.
There we have it. Senator Reid couldn't have said it better. It's about us, our stories, our struggles, our health care. Besides, I thought this would be a nice segway from all the talk lately of the politics of Harry Reid and 2010 to the facts of the matter.
The difference between legislation and public relations (campaigning) also serves to obfuscate the issue. This crucial difference gets lost in the efforts to offer prognostication about the passage of reform measures. There is a common narrative in American political reporting which is often more applicable to NASCAR than to the legislative process. Simply put, the narrative seeks to find winners and losers, who is leading, who is behind, whose poll numbers are up, and whose are down. What is the "percentage" prospect that a particular bill will be passed, and what are the "odds" it will fail? This narrative frame works well when discussing which drivers have the best statistical chance of placing in the top 12 contestants for the Sprint Cup, but not quite so well when attempting to explicate the legislative process.
The narrative frame is useful for describing the political implications and ramifications of races, national, statewide, and district; but, it rarely serves well as a vehicle for policy analysis. The upshot is that Americans get a healthy serving of political news each and every day, but not quite so much in the way of legislative process information, and even less policy analysis and discussion.
Most of the stories from political reporters are precisely what a reader should expect from political reporters...politics: The summation of poll numbers; The probability of electoral success; The nature and viability of the opposition. If we take as given that most of the news average citizens are getting about health care reform legislation pertains to the political maneuvering and ramifications thereof, then it's easy to conclude that process will run second, and the policy analysis will be the stepchild in the narrative. This, too, adds to the confusion factor.
The health care reform legislation debate is a prime example of how imbalances in coverage (or perceived coverage) translates into electorate confusion. Republicans are eager to note that they've captured the "narrative," and that the Democrats have made inadequate efforts to secure public favor for their proposals. But, wait; notice the internal numbers in the polling cited in the opening paragraph. Only 9% of Nevadans are pleased with the status quo. Only 16% say the system needs only minor changes. If the Republicans are pointing to a generic dissatisfaction with Democratic proposals, they may be missing the specific dissatisfaction with the status quo they are attempting to maintain. In short, the GOP may have "won" the road race narrative but appear to be well behind in policy acceptance, perhaps because legislation doesn't happen on a perfect oval.
There you have it. Behind all the pundits saying this and predicting that, and behind all the confusion created by all the ads flooding the media, we have people who want to see reform but don't know what to think of what's being discussed in the media.
In opinion polls a majority of the nation’s voters display generally progressive values. But they do not label themselves liberals. A majority of Americans (57%) also agree, “When something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful.” Thus, a skeptical public needs to be convinced of the renewed competence of government. This is not an overnight task particularly in light of the massive failings of the Bush era. Activist government requires very good communication to the public. This is the President’s hallmark.
So this is the problem. Americans are increasingly espousing progressive values and support for "activist government", but they don't know yet if the government can actually be made to work. We can thank the GOP and "ConservaDems" for that.
And when they constantly hear of more corporate bailouts, more talk of protecting HMO profits, and more giveaways to the pharmaceutical companies, they must be wondering what this health care debate is really about. And again, this is the problem.
We need to cut through the lies and give people health care reform that they can understand and they will actually benefit from.
There. Simple as that. Perhaps Reid made some errors in letting "The Baucus Caucus" spend so much time confusing everyone over co-op this and co-op that, Perhaps Obama made some errors in not showing leadership early on in clearly defining what he wants presented to his desk to sign into law. Ultimately, there's still time to cut through the BS and deliver to the American people what they want out of this big mess.
Let's hope that happens ASAP.
....
And I'll finish off with something I wrote more recently. And yes, I promise to talk more about health care when Congress is back in session after the holidays and we finally see a final bill. I just hope it will be worth supporting, and that it will actually do some good for people in need.
But in the mean time, I'll just end with this.
....
Honestly, I'm exhausted right now. I'm tired. I'm drained. This health care fight has delighted me at times, infuriated me at times, and has left me fighting with just about everyone over everything.
So what exactly am I fighting for? Thank goodness Desert Beacon is here to remind me!
[S]top sweating the small stuff. OK, it's not small to you that there is no public option proposal in the Senate version of the legislation, and it's not small to you that there is no Medicare buy-in for those aged 55-64. Those were proposals (and reasonably good ones) intended to bring down the cost of health insurance plans sold by private corporations. They are not now and never were central to the health care reform legislation. While we got down in the weeds with public options and buy-ins we've not been focused on the essential feature of the proposals -- the subsidy levels for insurance premiums and the income standards attached thereto. If anything, we ought to be arguing about whether or not the standard 250% above our unrealistically low assigned poverty level is sufficient to assist most working families in this country. I'd like single-payer, but that was never in the cards; and, I'd have been pleased to get a public option included in the insurance exchange and/or Medicare buy-ins, but I'm not ready to toss the positive aspects of the current Senate bill out with the bathwater du jour.
Yep, she brings up some valid points that I remember discussing last week, back when the Medicare buy-in became the "conflict du jour". There are still worthy elements of the bill worth passing, such as the increased regulation and improved subsidies.
However, I must admit I'm still afraid of any type of individual mandate to buy insurance if there's no public option available on Day One of reform. As I was saying yesterday, this is simply bad policy because it forces the working poor and middle class to buy crappy HMOs that they really can't afford. And of course, this also makes it bad politics since Democrats will be taking ownership of the individual mandate.
But then again, would it really be better for us to throw it all down the drain, as some progressives are now suggesting? Is reconciliation the "magic bullet" that we really want? Again, I'll defer to Desert Beacon.
Third, nothing would please the Republicans in the Senate and their corporate masters quite so much as to have the liberal and moderate wings of the Democratic party do their work for them. It's been the GOP intention all along to scuttle any and all health care reform legislation. We can assume this is so because they've hewed to their Luntz Talking Points from the beginning: Government Takeovers, Rationed Care, Bew-row-crats in your health care. They carped about imaginary "Death Panels," and they've whined about "Killing Granny." However, it's reasonably obvious that the last thing they wanted was to directly address the insurance company practices (exclusion/rescission) that helped create the crisis in health care we face today. Instead of addressing specific issues, they've consistently resorted to generalities and fear-mongering. Instead of steadily working on the legislation, they've consistently stalled and obstructed any attempts at progress (witness the Gregg Memo). Tossing the package out now because it doesn't sate progressives' advocacy for single-payer/public option/Medicare buy-ins plays directly into GOP obstructionist hands.
Fourth, there are no cheap fixes. The much touted, and much misunderstood, reconciliation process in the Senate is not an option if we really want the insurance reform we say we do. [Emphasis mine.] Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) explained, "reconciliation is a very spare and thin process with limited opportunities." Reconciliation applies only to the money parts of the bill; it would not serve to pass insurance reforms that are at the heart of regulating the insurance corporation practices as they abuse their exclusion and rescission clauses.
So there you have it. Reconciliation can be done, but with tight limits and requiring far more time. And since it already looks like this process (as it is now) will drag into 2010, do we really want to risk health care being drawn out even closer to the midterm elections? And do we want to complicate things further by trying to figure out what can be done with reconciliation and what can't?
Again, we face some tough choices in the next few days... So maybe it's best for us to wait and see what happens next. After all, we don't even know all of what's in this new bill yet!
Oh yeah, and we finally have some good news in House Democrats inserting themselves back into the debate by demanding Conference to merge the House & Senate bills. This is good for us, as this actually keeps the public option alive and kicking. After all, remember that the House version has a public option and that House progressives are refusing to support any final bill with no public option.
And getting back to the Senate, let's remember something else. As hard as I've been sometimes on Harry Reid, I still understand that he doesn't have an easy job here. Matt Yglesias explains.
I think it’s worth sparing a thought in this regard for the much-maligned Harry Reid. It seems like it was only three years ago that [Beltway pundit] Jacob Weisberg was explaining to people that Reid and Pelosi were so icky, liberal, and inept that Republicans could stay in power forever or something. And liberals have rarely found themselves hailing Reid’s leadership. But the fact of the matter is that there’s almost no precedent for the legislative mission he’s been asked to accomplish of turning 59 Democrats, one loosely Democrat-aligned Independent, and two slightly moderate Republicans into 60 votes for a package that’s simultaneously a dramatic expansion of the welfare state and a measure that reduces both short- and long-term deficits.
On top of the intrinsically difficult nature of the task, he’s facing a really ugly political situation back home. Since Beltway mores dictate that you can never hold a member of congress morally culpable for actions undertaken in the name of raw politically self-interest, it must have been very tempting for Reid to get distracted. But he’s stayed on point and focused, dealt with the timid members of his caucus, dealt with the ignorant members of his caucus, dealt with the egomaniacal members of his caucus, and dealt with the all-too-typical Senatorial combination of policy ignorance, egomania, and political cowardice among some members. For his troubles it looks like we’re going to get a bill that liberals feel churlish about at best. But it’s really an extraordinary achievement.
So let's remember this. All of this. The final bill that emerges won't be perfect, but we still have time to possibly improve it. The Senate still requires 60 votes to get this done, since reconciliation isn't the "easy backdoor process" that some progressives dream of it as. And no matter how good and/or bad the final bill is overall, there are some inherently good elements of it that need to become law ASAP (before the window on health care closes yet again on Capitol Hill).
So excuse me while I take a breather for a bit. I will be analyzing and investigating whatever is thrown out next as "today's official Senate health care bill", and I will do my best to be more careful before praising it or trashing it.
