Weekly Pulse: Obama Signs Health Reform Bill, Backlash Begins

by: The Media Consortium

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:07

By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger

Yesterday, President Obama signed health care reform into law. As Mike Lillis explains in the Washington Independent, the bill now proceeds to the Senate for reconciliation. The whole process could be complete by the end of the week. Republicans and their allies have already moved to challenge reform in court.

Legal challenges

The fight is far from over, however. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly notes that Republicans have already filed papers to challenge health care reform in court. The Justice Department has pledged to vigorously defend health care reform, according to Zach Roth of TPM Muckraker.

The legal arguments against health care reform center around the constitutionality of an individual mandate, i.e., the requirement that everyone must carry health insurance. This argument is specious. The bill characterizes the mandatory payments as a tax, and imposes a fine for those who don't pay their insurance tax. There is no question that Congress has the authority to levy taxes in support of the general welfare and providing health insurance to the people easily meets that legal criterion.

Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent reviews some of the other formidable legal barriers to challenging health care reform in court. But take heart, teabaggers! Birther-dentist-lawyer Orly Taitz is on the case.

Violent outbursts from reform opponents

Some anti-reform activists have resorted to intimidation.  Five Democratic offices were vandalized in the days surrounding the House vote, as Justin Elliott reports for TPM Muckraker. Someone hurled a brick through the window of the Niagara office of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the chair of the powerful House Rules Committee.

Slaughter is notorious on the right for drawing up the controversial "deem and pass" strategy for moving the bill forward. Her plan was never put into action, but she has become a target anyway. Another Democratic office in Slaughter's district was damaged by a brick bearing a quote from conservative icon Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

Elliott notes that a conservative blogger in Alabama is doing his best to incite similar attacks, though it's not clear whether he instigated any of the original five:

...Blogger Mike Vanderboegh has been tracking the  breaking of windows at Dem offices after issuing a call  Friday: "To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their  windows. Break them NOW."

Reproductive rights take a hit

Anti-abortion extremist Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) failed to get his ultra-restrictive abortion language inserted into the health care bill, but the final bill does impede health insurance coverage for abortion.

For example, those who choose abortion coverage will have to write two checks: One for their regular premium and one for a dollar to go into a separate abortion coverage fund. Many analysts fear that the extra hassles will discourage private insurers from covering abortion at all.  Pro-choice activists were in a weaker negotiating position because, unlike Stupak and his allies, they weren't prepared to kill health reform if their demands weren't met.

The greater good?

Now that health care reform is safely signed into law, the pro-choice movement is stepping back and asking itself some tough questions.

In The Nation, Katha Pollitt argues that the pro-choice movement deserves to be rewarded for sacrificing its own agenda for the greater good. She suggests that the Democrats could reward the reproductive rights movement by fully funding the Violence Against Women Act, addressing maternal mortality and other policy changes to advance women's health and freedom.

Jos of Feministing counters that with their go along to get along attitude pro-choice groups have only demonstrated that they can be ignored with impunity: "You don't get rewarded for demonstrating a lack of political  power, you get further marginalized."

At RH Reality Check, Megan Carpentier argues that national pro-choice organization like NARAL and Planned Parenthood ceded their leverage too easily. While anti-choicers were beefing up their lobbying presence in Washington, major pro-choice groups were scaling back. Pro-choice groups compromised early and easily, perhaps because they were overly confident that their service to the Democratic cause would be rewarded in the end.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members  of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse  for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Health care state of play, Senate Vote Eve edition

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 21:00

• The Senate voted to end debate on the health care bill today, by a vote of 60-39.  The Senator who did not vote was Jim Bunning of Kentucky.  If you are confused by the roll call vote I link, that is because the health care bill was attached to a piece of legislation on homeowners.

• The final vote will be Thursday (tomorrow) morning at 7 a.m. eastern, one hour earlier than previously expected.  While all 60 members of the Democratic Senate caucus voted for cloture (to end debate), expect at least Roland Burris to vote against final passage, which only requires 51 votes.  Burris will probably be joined by a couple of right-wing Democrats, too.

• Representative Louise Slaughter says "kill the bill." Or does she? (emphasis mine):

  Now don't get me wrong; the current House and Senate bills are a significant improvement over the status quo. Given the hard path to reform and the political realities of next year, there is a sizable group within Congress that wants to simply cut any deal that works and call it a success. Many previous efforts have failed, and the path to reform is littered with unsuccessful efforts championed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.

  Supporters of the weak Senate bill say "just pass it -- any bill is better than no bill."
  

  I strongly disagree -- a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.

  This part of Slaughter's op-ed is confusing--first she says the Senate bill would be better than the status quo, and then she says that no bill is better than the Senate bill.  Is she calling for defeating the bill, or not?  To clear up the confusion, Greg Sargent called a spokesperson for Representative Slaughter:

  But a spokesperson for Slaughter, Vince Morris, confirms she's not ruling out a vote for the final bill, even if it lacks a public option or other concessions sought by progressives.
  

  "She's not ruling anything in or out at this point," Morris tells me. "She is hopeful that we can make the bill better in conference."

  Confusing indeed, and the original op-ed could have been better written.  I agree with TomP, who thinks that Slaughter is making noise like this to try and improve the bill in conference.  This is an effort which I wholeheartedly endorse.

• In addition to the areas of dispute between the House and Senate bills I listed yesterday, another major area of dispute that has opened up in advance of the conference committee is when to start the exchanges: 2013 (as per the House bill, and progressive wishes) or 2014 (as per the Senate bill).  Ben Nelson today said he was skeptical of the exchanges starting in 2013, stating "we'll just have to look at the numbers." A statement about waiting for the CVO score from conservative Democratic Senators has usually been followed with a demand to strip the provision from the bill or else a filibuster will follow.  And those demands from conservative Senators are usually met with Rahm Emanuel showing up on Capitol Hill and telling Harry Reid to cave.

• Some White House sources are tired of Democrats debating the merits of the health care bill in the press:

  There's no hard evidence they'll be denied that victory and TPMDC sources have been saying all week they are tired of Democrats litigating the merits of health care in the press.

  So much for the desire to have a great debate about the health care in this country.  Also, so much for congratulating progressives on accomplishing something almost unheard of in recent American political media: making the public debate over a major piece of legislation between the left-wing and the center, rather than between the center-right and the extreme right-wing.

• Just in case you were wondering, even with tomorrow morning's vote, the health care fight will continue for at least another three weeks, and possibly as long as six weeks.  David Waldman breaks down the possibilities in detail.

NY-Sen: Louise Slaughter for Senate!

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 17:00

While I am pooh-poohing the Kennedy candidacy, allow me to offer a better choice: Representative Louise Slaughter (NY-28). Here are several reasons why Louise would make a great pick to fill Clinton's seat:

1. Louise has won twelve terms in Congress. That is twelve more elections than Caroline Kennedy has won, and significantly more than almost any other current contender for the seat. She is not a dynasty appointment, in other words.
   
2. She is a woman, a group that is undeniably under-represented in the Senate. It is probably a good idea to replace Clinton with another woman, which I am sure is one of the reasons why Kennedy is being considered.
   
3. Her modest roots and lifestyle are anything but elitist and insider. She is the daughter of a Kentucky coal miner, and lives in a very normal, average housing developing in a Rochester suburb (two doors down from my Aunt Cathy and Uncle Bob, fwiw). Members of my family often say that they see her shopping at one of the local Wegman's.
   
4. As chair of the rules committee, her ethical standing is beyond reproach, which is something that Democrats need in their Senate appointments right now.
   
5. She will turn 81 in 2010, making it likely that she will not seek a full-term. So, rather than entrenching someone in the seat, effectively an caretaker is appointed and then the people get to decide.
   
6. She is progressive, ranking 21st on Progressive Punch in 2007-2008 scores.
   
7. She represents Upstate New York--parts of both Rochester and Buffalo--which right now is pretty much entirely lacking representation at the statewide level.
   
8. Her seat is safe. With a PVI of D+15, whoever wins the special election will be a Democrat.