We are clearly living in a health care fantasy land.
Hours before the CBO score of the Finance Committee bill was released, 150 House Democrats sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi saying that they opposed a tax on high-cost health insurance plans. This renders such a tax dead on arrival, as it is opposed by more than 75% of the entire House of Representatives (150+ House Democrats plus 170+ House Republicans). Such a plan happens to be $201 billion of the $829 billion in funding for the Finance Committee bill, or 24% of all its funding.
Despite this, not only is the CBO score on the Baucus bill still taken as meaningful, but it is hailed nearly universally in the press as a major breakthrough on health care.
This is a demonstration of the pure nonsense that has come to dominate our political discourse. Clearly, the nearly consensus belief among political media is that the House of Representatives, one half of the legislative branch, does not matter in the slightest. Over 75% of the House can oppose the major funding mechanism for a piece of legislation, and yet the report on the cost of that legislation is still taken seriously. And not just seriously, but as a major breakthrough.
The House of Representatives no longer exists. Hell, no one in the Senate exists outside of about four or five members of the Evan Bayh's Conservadem coalition. If Max Baucus or Tom Carper like something, then immediately that something is viewed as a major legislative breakthrough even if it is opposed by 75% of the House of Representatives.
And the same thing can be said about the current opt-out plan. Not a single one of the four Senators who are a major worry for cloture on health care reform with a public option--Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson--have come out in favor of this proposal. And yet, somehow, this idea is hailed as a means to get to 60 votes.
Pardon my asterisk, but how the f*ck is the opt-out idea any better a means to get to 60 votes if none of the four Senators who were holding up the other ideas have come out in favor of this idea? It hasn't gained any f*cking votes, and yet it is hailed as a means to reach 60. That is pure bullsh*t.
Not to mention that we don't even know what kind of public option is in the opt-out "compromise." How can we claim that the opt-out compromise is better than the Schumer level playing field compromise when no one has even told us exactly what type of public option is in the opt-out compromise? The public option in the opt-out might actually be the level playing field compromise for all we know, which we don't because no one has written it down or even introduced it as legislation. Just because Sam Stein in the Huffington Post called it "robust" does not make it an actual proposal for a public option better than the level playing field.
So the House doesn't matter, actually gaining votes in the Senate doesn't matter, and actually seeing what sort of public option would be in the opt-out doesn't mater. All that matters are CBO scores for health care bills that Max Baucus likes or compromise ideas that Tom Carper likes, even though Max Baucus and Tom Carper are already guaranteed to vote for cloture on health care reform with a public option.
This is perverse. We have really gotten to the point, even in the progressive blogosphere, where any idea floated by any Conservadem is hailed as a way to get to 60, even if that idea has not demonstrated any ability to get more votes, even if that idea has been demonstrated to be opposed by 75% of the House of Representatives, and even if the idea hasn't been written down.
Our new system of government is apparently based on Conservadem trial balloons. Forget representative democracy and reaching majorities in either branch of Congress--if Max Baucus or Tom Carper like something, then it must be passable.
|
STATE BLOGS
