tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post8928403048874087575..comments2023-11-03T08:36:57.066-04:00Comments on D.C. Exile: Passing the BillUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-29922228358774082912010-01-22T17:46:46.967-05:002010-01-22T17:46:46.967-05:00I think that the passing the bill and putting some...<i>I think that the passing the bill and putting some reform in place may ex post facto render Healthcare reform popular.</i><br /><br />I'm just not sure about that given the way health care legislation is being structured. Normally with legislation you are going to make some constituencies angry and others pleased. With this bill I just don't see it, given that the costs are immediate and the benefits deferred until after the 2012 election. Handing someone a bill while promising benefits several years away -- I am just not sure how that will change a lot of voter's minds.<br /><br />I can see liberals being pleased. Passing HCR would certainly excite the base. But, conversely, it will rile up the opposition base (granted, I'm not sure opposition can get much more fervent than it already is) and turn off a lot of independents, who seem less than thrilled with the bill. So you've secured one vote but given the opposition two.<br /><br />I suppose how the bill will be received depends a lot on whether it is in fact the <i>process</i> that is upsetting people or the actual substance of the bill. I suspect it is the latter. When I read quotes from angry voters on health care they usually consist of things like "my Medicare is going to be taken away" or "I am going to have less choice" or "I don't want to be forced to buy insurance." I rarely see more process-related complaints such as the lack of C-Span or the Cornhusker kickback, which strikes me as a little inside baseball anyway. And I'm talking about stuff I read in the NYT and WashPost, not rightwingnews.com. But maybe I am looking in the wrong place. <br /><br />All of this may be moot, however, as frankly I don't see how Democrats can get health care passed anyway. I simply don't know where the votes come from -- the House won't pass the Senate version and the filibuster makes the Senate a legislative graveyard (if Collins or Snowe haven't caved by now, I don't see them changing course following what happened in MA). <br /><br />I also don't think the reconciliation process will work. Maybe Dems can get <i>something</i> passed and call it health care, but not the current bills. And starting all over again would drag the process along for months more and keep health care in the headlines -- the very thing you say Democrats need to avoid. <br /><br />I'm probably not totally objective on this, but I think Dems are facing a lot of bad choices. If they proceed with current legislation -- assuming they even can -- I think they will get walloped. If they do nothing they'll be attacked.<br /><br />Maybe the best bet is what David Brooks says (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22brooks.html), just opt for a middling route in which some modest health care measure is passed and try to move on. Full throttle with the liberal agenda, however, seems like a recipe for making John Boehner speaker of the House next year.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.com