Reid, Pelosi, and the fight to save health-care reform

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The top two Democrats in Congress, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are apparently working this weekend to try to save health-care reform:

Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill -- a move that would preserve President Barack Obama's vision of a sweeping health reform plan.

But the move comes with political risk, because it would open Democrats up to charges that they pressed ahead with roughly the same health care bill that voters appeared to reject in the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday. Republican Scott Brown won on a pledge to try to block Obama-style health reform.

The effort also puts Reid and Pelosi on the side of giving a sweeping reform bill one more try, instead of adopting a course being floated by some Democrats in Congress and at the White House of adopting a scaled-back bill including popular reform provisions.

The changes are being worked on this weekend with plans for Pelosi to present them to her caucus next week, according to sources familiar with the situation. But, sources stressed, neither Reid nor Pelosi know if this strategy can win the support of their members, but they are attempting it because it is the quickest path to passage.

This is from Politico, though, so there's some pro-Republican bias to the reporting.

First, the vote in Massachusetts last Tuesday was neither a referendum on Obama nor a referendum more specifically on health-care reform. That's just the Republican narrative, pushed by the Beltway media. As I have said again and again, though, while national politics did feature prominently in the Massachusetts race, the outcome was ultimately driven by the economy/unemployment on the one hand and factors specific to the race on the other (such as the fact that Coakley was a lousy candidate while Brown was an outstanding one.) Scott didn't win because of that one "pledge." It is simply ridiculous to suggest that he did. (Not least because health-care reform is widely popular in Massachusetts.)

Second, health-care reform is not just Obama's "sweeping vision," it's been a goal of Democrats for decades, and there are many Democrats who support more sweeping reform (and many on the left who object to this bill in particular on the grounds that it doesn't nearly go far enough). What's more, the Senate bill would hardly implement a radical overhaul of America's health-care system. Of course, changes would be substantial and genuinely meaningful, but it's a compromise bill designed to win the support of centrists, including Lieberman and Nelson. It's not like Obama is demanding that a single-payer system be put in place.

Third, while this may be "the quickest way to passage," it's likely only the only way to passage. The fact is, the House needs to pass the Senate bill as is in order to avoid sending reform back to the Senate, where it would likely fail given the fact that Reid no longer has the 60 votes to defeat a Republican filibuster. (He may not even have 59, as both Nelson and Lieberman have already backed away from it, and it is unlikely that a "moderate" Republican like Snowe, who is now firmly against reform despite the fact that she supported the Senate Finance Committee bill that closely resembles the final Senate bill), would vote with the Democrats. Which is to say, it's pretty much now or never for reform. Republicans say tthey want the Democrats to start over on reform, but going back to the drawing board would only empower Republican obstructionism still further. (Republican strategy is to drag out the process for as long as possible so as to kill reform initiatives through attrition.) Some Democrats have talked about working on a smaller bill, but that, too, would fit into the Republican obstructionist agenda, as they have shown no signs of supporting any reform bill, including a smaller one. (And, again, Democrats have already given away so much already.)

Spinning their narrative, Republicans are claiming not just that the American people (apparently channelling their political will through the people of Massachusetts, a state that Republicans generally loathe) have voted their opposition to reform but that Democrats, in response to that vote, are trying, undemocratically, to ram their bill through Congress. This is utterly ridiculous. Both houses of Congress voted for reform well before the election in Massachusetts and, of course, the Democrats still control both houses with solid majorities. (Even if Republicans and their media mouthpieces, and not just at Fox News, would have us believe that Brown's victory fundamentally shifted the balance of power in Washington.)

So, essentially, Reid and Pelosi are simply trying to close the deal, and there is actually good reason to be optimistic despite signs of fear and panic among Democrats the past few days. The Senate bill is a fine baseline of reform, and House Democrats should accept it as such. But they want more, and that can be achieved through separate legislation or through reconciliation.

Is there "political risk"? Sure, but when is there not? And, I would argue, there's much greater risk in doing nothing. (Given the opportunity Democrats (still) have to pass meaningful reform, doing nothing would also amount to a colossal failure to do what's right for the American people.)

"But if Reid and Pelosi can package [the] already-discussed improvements, and agree to approve them through reconciliation after the House passes the Senate bill, then there's still hope that a fiasco for the ages can be avoided" (Steve Benen).

Let's hope they can get this done.

**********

For more of our coverage of health-care reform this past week, see, in reverse chronological order:

-- Creature: Health-care reform
-- Carl: Pass it... to kill it?
-- J. Kingston Pierce: 1994, the coming sequel?
-- Michael Stickings: Worst Democrat of the Day: Dianne Feinstein
-- Michael Stickings: What Democrats need to do about health-care reform
-- J. Kingston Pierce: Pass health-care reform NOW!