Looming date for HCR's fate

2 minute mark, "it may take a no vote in order to get people back on board" HRC.

This via David Dayden on Wed. Over on RCP, Jay Cost looks at the vote tally in the House, and it does look pretty tough.

My contention has been that the HCR bill as written in the Senate is a Democratic slayer of a bill. Its mandate provision makes it constitutionally questionable, and easily is framed as yet another corporate giveaway.

Right now, it looks like Brown has the momentum and that he could win in MA next Tuesday. And that is going to have huge repercussions in DC for HCR. Does it make it DOA?  It could, but it could also mean that the progressives in the House say the public option way, or no deal.

Would no deal be better?  That begs a whole different argument about whether there is political will to make it better later. Electorally though, without a doubt. Democrats could vote this down, come back with some of the popular reforms that are in the bill and widely backed, and vote that through next month.

 

Tags: hcr (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton, HCR = Health Care Reform?

I dont agree with the premise of this though. How much stomach will there be for another go at HCR soon after if this version is killed?

by newms 2010-01-15 09:42AM | 1 recs
RE: HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton, HCR = Health Care Reform?

If you buy the idea that the Dems think that passing nothing would be a disaster for them and for Obama, then I think it's pretty likely that they would ram through some of it using reconciliation and then put certain other popular provisions (recissions ban, etc) in bills and make the GOP and blue dogs try to vote against them.

 

 

by jeopardy 2010-01-15 10:17AM | 0 recs
RE: HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton, HCR = Health Care Reform?

Maybe... but, I would not take that bet...

by LordMike 2010-01-15 10:24AM | 0 recs
RE: HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton, HCR = Health Care Reform?

the other option is to be blackmailed.

the very people who say we have to pass this sham of a bill right now because we can't later....are the very same people that decide whether to pass it later using reconciliation or whatever. The dem leadership is basically threatening to let it sink in order to get votes for a corporate giveaway.

 

 

 

 

by jeopardy 2010-01-15 10:50AM | 0 recs
RE: HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton, HCR = Health Care Reform?

How many votes do you have and for what?

by vecky 2010-01-15 02:47PM | 0 recs
RE: HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton, HCR = Health Care Reform?
Zero. Some stuff might survive. Like the exchanges, maybe tort "reform". But no expansion of medicare, no 100 billions in subsidies for lower and middle class workers.
by vecky 2010-01-15 02:46PM | 0 recs
RE: Looming date for HRC's fate

The mandate is constitutionally questionable now?  Talk about late to the party.

by JJE 2010-01-15 10:05AM | 0 recs
RE: Looming date for HRC's fate
There's little doubt that its up to question, and also 5 conservatives sit on the Supreme Court. imo, if it passed being pro-corporatist a bill, then Roberts would let it stand.
by Jerome Armstrong 2010-01-15 10:19AM | 0 recs
RE: Looming date for HRC's fate

If it was the MA individual mandate, and the Hawaii employeer mandate, would already have been struck down. 

by vecky 2010-01-15 02:48PM | 0 recs
RE: Looming date for HRC's fate

Well, that's not really true, because there are limits on the federal power that don't really apply to the states.  But I think the constitutional objections are fairly non-serious.

by Steve M 2010-01-15 03:09PM | 0 recs
Just this morning

I read to very good articles that questioned the constitutionality of the bill and cited specific court cases and amendments. I believe that this bill if passed will en dup being held up and eventually ruled unconstitutional. Here is a link to at least one article:

 

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2E33DCAF-18FE-70B2-A8609CF474274010

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-01-15 10:05AM | 0 recs
RE: Just this morning

Here is the another link to a more detailed explanation. Further, I called a close relative who is a constitutional law expert and teaches at Cornell University School of Law. He had read the article as well and said that he agreed and in fact had been lecturing recently on the constitutionality or lack thereof of provisions in the bill....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html

 

 

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-01-15 10:12AM | 0 recs
RE: Just this morning

From your article:

 

"The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do."

__________

 

Nobody who knows anything about the Commerce CLause would say that stuff unless they are wilfully trying to mislead people. To say that health care doesn't implicate the Commerce Clause is so far past asine, that I don't even know where to begin. And they are completely fabricating what the Court said in Lopez.

You need to find much, much better sources or nobody with any sort of Constitutional knowledge is going to take you seriously.

 

 

 

by jeopardy 2010-01-15 10:33AM | 0 recs
RE: Just this morning

In fact, there are few other examples I can even think of that so squarly fall under the Commerce Clause than somehting that is 1/6 of the national economy, effects worker productivity, is the subject of so many employment contracts for massive companies operating in dozens of states, requires educated workers that are members of national medical organizations, implicated goods that are regularly bought and sold accross states, etc.

If there is a Constitutional problem, it's not because Congress doesn't have the power somewhere in the Constitution, but rather that it infringes on some other part, perhaps a privacy right. I think you can guess why GOP hacks are avoiding arguing for a privacy right though, even if an economic privacy right.

 

 

by jeopardy 2010-01-15 11:25AM | 0 recs
Thanks, but

I'm a lawyer and don't find op-eds by Kenneth Blackwell particularly enlightening on Constitutional issues.  Who is your relative?  William Jacobsen?

by JJE 2010-01-15 01:27PM | 0 recs
One possible outcome of this debacle

This should put an end to Obama's thoroughly misguided kumbaya politics. Real health care reform died by thousands of self-inflicted wounds from an executive branch that was unwilling to takea strong position in fear of tarnishing its brand of politics. Frankly the bill as written now is better off dead.

by tarheel74 2010-01-15 10:17AM | 2 recs
I don't believe it's better off dead, but the bipartisanship theme...

...must die.

If this impending loss, and here in MA, I do believe she will lose, does anything, it will hopefully once and for all kill the dispicable bipartisanship theme and ignite the democrats into behaving like democrats.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-15 10:31AM | 0 recs
RE: I don't believe it's better off dead, but the bipartisanship theme...

 Will tarheel## be proven correct as Obama changes his political philosophy? Will nofortunateson prove to be the better prophet by predicting essentially the same thing? I can't wait to find out!

{PS, the problem all along, nfs, is that we Democrats have in fact been acting like Democrats this entire time. Let's face it.}

by QTG 2010-01-16 04:46AM | 0 recs
If Brown wins

The House would have to suck it up and pass the Senate bill as is. Olympia Snowe seems to have been spurned to the point of not wanting to deal, so no other bill will pass the Senate. I think the leadership knows this, and will get the votes: Pelosi has proven that she's an expert vote wrangler. I disagree with the notion that waiting is a good option. With everyone believing Democrats will face losses in November, when will we be in a stronger position to pass something? If it doesn't get done now, it won't for a long time. All the more reason to fight hard for Coakley, as incredibly flawed as she may be.

by DieHardBlue 2010-01-15 11:04AM | 0 recs
E Pluribus Pluribus

E Pluribus Chaos is more like it.

There's lots of head shaking going on over here in the Grown-up wing of the Democratic Party, you'll be happy to hear.

So, I recommend that you enjoy the your told-you-so moment, my young 'progressive' friends. When you're all done celebrating, look up the word 'progress'. You might be surprised. Excellent work.

by QTG 2010-01-15 01:40PM | 0 recs
What are you talking about?

Even a stopped closk is right twice a day

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-16 09:36AM | 0 recs
Breaking Blue not working for me

but <a href="http://stevekornacki.blogspot.com/2010/01/coakley-internal-brown-3.html"&gt;Coakley's internal poll for Thursday night shows Brown ahead by 3</a>. Undecideds seem to have broken his way. Her decision not to campaign, then to attack hard seems to have backfired. Hoping Clinton and Obama can turn this thing around. Coakley may be a terrible candidate, but 6 years of GOP representation for Massachusetts in the Senate would be criminal. This guy is not even a moderate.

by desmoinesdem 2010-01-15 11:40PM | 0 recs
RE: Breaking Blue not working for me

It's not 6 years, the seat is up in 2012.

by Steve M 2010-01-16 01:54AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads