HCR is not going down because of House progressives

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

If the problem was House progressives Nancy Pelosi would be negotiating with them.

House progressives talk tough then fold... they are not folks who actually kill bills. House progressives are ultimately dismissible. (The House passed a bill with the Stupak language in it!)

The fatal blow appears to be that House centrists are now against a bill because they are afraid that any bill is a political loser unless Republicans like it.

Pelosi has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president's desk quickly. But moderates in her caucus have raised doubts about forging ahead without bipartisan support -- a challenge as the midterm election approaches -- while liberals rejected the Senate bill as not going far enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101604.html

It is the moderates that Pelosi cannot cajole or bargain with. If it was just the progressives they would be brought around. (Is there any recent precedent progrssives actually sucessfully blocking anything on their own?)

This wing-nuty comment really got me in the gut. I'll admit that I don't know much about John Tanner (D-TN 8th) but I am going to guess that a white Dem from Tennessee is probably not Bernie Sanders II:

So who's in the Chop-It-Up Caucus? Yesterday Rep. Delahunt was one of the first to enter. And then a few moments ago we heard from TPM reporter Brian Beutler up on the Hill that Rep. Blumenauer is also in. And just a few moments ago we heard from TPM reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro outside the House Dems caucus meeting who tells us that Rep. Tanner just said that his preferred approach is to split the bill into smaller chunks "Republicans can agree with us on." Continued Tanner: "A 2000 page bill is not something I'm particularly interested in."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/chop-it-up_caucus.php#more?ref=fpblg

[Better Today]

1. I actually like the break it up idea. Then we can handle some of

the directly cost related issues, like perhaps lowering the age for Medicare or Medicare buy-in paid for by increase in wealth taxes, in reconciliation. And the insurance regulation aspects, like no pre-existing condition exclusions, through the regular process and dare repubs to vote against it. Also this leaves a way to remove the mandates clauses because folks won't vote for it, if presented by itself or as a part of another regular process bill, . . . .this might work.

[subterranean]

10. You can't ban pre-existing condition exclusions without having a mandate.

The reason has been explained here many times.

I'd like the "break it up" idea too if I thought it would actually result in something good, like a strong public option or even Medicare buy-in. Unfortunately, I don't think Congress and the Senate have the will to go through that debate again in an election year. If they try to pass health care reform in pieces, I predict the most meaningful change we'll get is some toothless new regulation of the insurance companies, such as a ban on rescissions "except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation," or an "independent" panel to review claim denials. I hope I'm wrong, but that's the way I see things heading.

[Better Today]

11. I said "if presented through regular process," if they push it through

reconciliations then I think (okay hope) it will be fairer, include employer mandates, and such.

[leveymg]

2. I'm glad everyone agrees to cut the Bill into smaller chunks. Even Tanner.

It's going to be the only way to get some of the good stuff passed. It's not "all or nothing" anymore, which no one could stomach.

[Teaser]

4. all those small chunks will die in the Senate

at the hands of republicans.

And they will still win the midterms handedly.

[leveymg]

6. Don't think so. We'll see if the Senate Dems have any survival instinct left.

Hope they realize this is their only last chance.

[Teaser]

8. they don't.

they are abject failures.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. I'm not sure "all or nothing" is quite accurate -

more like "damned little or nothing".

[Inuca]

3. I don't think that

Delahunt and Blumenauer qualify as centrists, they are left of center AFAIK. I may be wrong though, I am keeping up with the Senate better than I manage to do with the House.

[Clio the Leo]

5. Have you read this one....

"It was clear for about a week that Martha Coakley was probably going to lose last night's senate election. And anticipating that defeat we started talking about the 'X Factor', whether the shock or demoralization of a Massachusetts defeat would change the vote calculus in the House. But I really thought the problem was going to be on the right of the Democratic caucus -- various Blue Dogs, Freshmen/Sophomores, Red State Dems, etc. But that does not seem to be what's happening. According to Greg Sargent, a group of House liberals just met with Speaker Pelosi and told her categorically that they won't vote for the Senate bill.

On the one hand, as David notes, I'm not sure how much weight we should put in that 'categoricalness' of the claim since the House progressives have crossed a bunch of lines they drew in the sand this year. But it shows you where they are.

And along the lines of the sort of denial these folks seem to be in, there's this graf from Greg's piece ...

Tellingly, House liberals also urged Pelosi to consider passing individual pieces of reform through the House as individual bills, and sending them to the Senate to challenge the upper chamber to reject them, Grijalva tells me. Liberals said this approach would be preferable to passing the Senate bill.
They really do think they're going to get another bite at the apple."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2010_01_17.php?ref=fpblg

I think there's a WHOLE LOT Of blame to go around on this one.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Everyone is to blame but moderates are decisive

My point is that the House progressives would fold if it was only them... Obama would go tak to them and they'd fold. They always fold.

What kills the thing for real is that moderates are also involved.

This is what happened with Stupak. 60 LW dems said no way with it and 60 RW dems said no way without it.

Result? Stupak passed.