Joe Lieberman threw a healthy dose of water on the Pelosi-Reid-Obama health care fire this morning, reiterating that he will join in a Republican filibuster of any Senate health care bill which contains a public option. This is at least the second time in recent days Lieberman has made this commitment, and there is every reason to believe he means it.
Keep in mind, Nancy Pelosi cut a deal to get her health care bill through the House (by a mere 5 votes) by allowing a floor vote on the Stupak Amendment, which reiterates existing federal law banning federal funding for abortions, and takes that law several steps further by requiring any health plan which participates in the newly established exchanges to offer competing plans, one which covers abortion and one which does not. The Stupak Amendment makes clear that any plan offering abortion coverage must be self-funding, with no federal funds used directly or indirectly. As many left-wing bloggers are screaming, the Stupak Amendment guts Roe v. Wade in reality (but not in law) by creating a subclass of health insurance coverage which will cost more and be less available than alternatives without abortion coverage.
So Harry Reid needs to drop the public option to get a bill through the Senate. Nancy Pelosi needs to drop abortion coverage even for most private plans, to get a bill through the House.
The end result: If a bill is to pass both houses of Congress, it will have no public option and no abortion coverage.
The left-wing will take care of dropping Pelosi and Reid from their leadership positions. And if Obama were to sign such a bill, who knows whether he would be dropped in 2012.
I'm already feeling a little better about the situation, than last night at 11:00. I told you first reactions were dangerous.
--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Democrats Sold Their Party's Reproductive Soul
First Take On House Passage
NY Times Names Names
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. I've been hesitant to jump to conclusions in either direction, but this is certainly a better situation than it could be.
ReplyDeleteI think that as long as the insurance-mandate provision and the public-option (including public-funded abortions) are kept out of any reform that the Dems manage to pass it would have to be considered a victory. Taxes are a lot easier to repeal than new precedents in the government's authority, y'know?
I'm praying this heinous bill not make it out of the Senate. Hopefully Nazi Pelosi and Reid will be removed from office next go around, as will the Indonesian Candidate In Chief in 2012.
ReplyDeleteHow many of those 64 Dems could we have gotten to vote no without this amendment?
ReplyDeleteThey already have like 35-37, that's only 3-5 more. This is a wedge issue for Democrats and we solved their problem for them.
That's never good strategy, especially since we aren't going to get this in the final bill but the pressure to suck it up will be greater on the Democrats later.
A missed opportunity simply to suck up to the NRLC. I am pro-life but this was a Pyrrhic victory for the GOP and for pro-lifers.
This amendment is going to be dropped in conference, but at least the GOP is on record as supporting it, and if it is dropped they will be able to cry foul.
Did Bart Stupak out 'Rove' the Republicans?
Allowing the amendment to pass, gives the main bill a better chance. Blue Dogs have their cover and now the liberals will always be able to point to this night saying that the Republicans helped.
I do not believe Blue Dogs have their cover. If the bill passes and Americans are angry they will be angry at all Dems regardless of who voted yea or nay. Just as they blamed all Republicans inclding moderates for Bush.
ReplyDelete[I graduated from Cornell Law School ... you are a credit to my alma matter, Sir. It's a great place to remove oneself from urban distractions to focus on the study of law. I recommend it to others over more conventionally more highly regarded law schools, but not all of them.]
ReplyDeleteGood news. The Democrats in the House may have totally undermined themselves. They've avoided hearing from their constituents but also are stuck with a bill that has not been thus vetted that may not pass the Senate. So their opponents in 2010 can go point-by-point through the bill as is, whether it passes or not. They've committed and perhaps impotently. So, perhaps take heart.
My idea, if you would attempt anything remotely akin to this, i.e., providing inexpensive health insurance to anyone who would apply for it, then PERMIT people to pay between $0 and $15,000 depending on their income to enroll in Medicaid; and drug test everyone on Medicaid to enforce illegal drug laws and/or compel the patient treatment(of this disease, so called by some, however aptly described). [It's insane that we do not do that already. If their health is the concern, and tax efficacy also, this would seem obvious.]
Progressively Defensive
Oh ... to fund, tax everyone 0.1% more, fine punitively those who hire just one illegal alien under strict liability (they can buy insurance), and gasoline whatever more it takes ... or some of the above.
ReplyDeleteProgressively Defensive
Alma mater.
ReplyDeleteJust to mention two groups who will be madder than hell: Those on Medicare all of whom will have to pay higher rates and get less benefits and who will take it out on the AARP and Democrat politicos. And the majority of MD’s, those doctors who allowed the AMA to be taken over by Liberal Democrats.
ReplyDeleteJoe Mersnik, Sr.
http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2NlYTJjZGQ1MDMyNjZjNjU1MGE0NTc5YzJkZjQ3ZGM=
ReplyDeleteNice ... it begins. But, being an Independent, I wonder if the horribly inept politicians in the GOP can parlay this opportunity.
The United State Senate is worthless. Now that the GOP pretty much filibusters everything on partisan lines. what is the point of its existence? Besides the "because it's in the Constitution" defense, why should we even blow the tax dollars require to pay these gasbags to do nothing?
ReplyDeleteI have been waiting for some of the better informed analyses of this bill to come in. I feel better now
ReplyDeleteIt was actually a three vote 'victory' for the socialists. If three votes had changed from democraps to the republican side this measure would have been defeated. One of those votes was a freshman republican from LA. What a disgrace.
ReplyDelete