Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHAT THE SEBELIUS VOTE TELLS US ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM.
Kathleen Sebelius mustered 65 votes in the Senate yesterday. That's something of a victory for Anti-abortion zealots managed to muster fairly -- though not totally -- united opposition among Republicans. Matt Yglesias looks at this and says, "if you can only get 65 votes for what should be an uncontroversial HHS appointment, then the odds of a broad bipartisan coalition for big picture health care reform are not so good."
I think that's right. On the other hand, you don't need a broad bipartisan coalition. You only need a small bipartisan coalition. Or, if you could achieve full Democratic unity, no bipartisan coalition at all. The point of the bill is passing it, not passing it pretty. That, at the end of the day, is why the administration insisted on including the reconciliation process. Ramming the bill through with 50 votes isn't the most elegant way to pass health care reform. But it's better, they seem to have decided, than not passing health care reform. The voters aren't big on awarding style points.
I'd also suggest that the Sebelius vote is more akin to a farm subsidy vote than a piece of major social policy legislation. So long as Sebelius is confirmed, the actual vote total is only of interest to the anti-abortion groups who are trying to show symbolic opposition to her record. As such, voting against Sebelius had no consequences for Republicans. Voting for Sebelius did. That might have changed had they held the votes to actually doom her nomination. But insofar as they didn't have that power, casting irresponsible votes is one of the few delights afforded to powerless minorities. You wouldn't want to take that away from them, would you?
More analogous, I'd suggest, is the budget vote. And the budget just passed with the House with exactly zero Republican votes. More important than whether Republicans will vote for health care is whether Democrats wrongly imagine that they'll vote for health care. The real danger was that promises of Republican cooperation would lead to a Democratic strategy predicated on substantial Republican votes. That didn't happen. Instead, Democrats are assuming the absence of significant Republican support and moving ahead on a strategy that leaves space for them at the table but can succeed even if they never enter the room.
COMMENTS (11)
The question is, can you muster up some synonyms for muster? :-)
Posted by: Drew Miller | April 29, 2009 1:35 PM
The difference is the interest groups. Abortion VS Insurance Industry and Big Pharma.
What the Republicans do is going to be dictated by three things:
1) A bill of some kind is guaranteed to pass thus motivating the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma to pressure Republicans into representing their interests.
2) Republicans will resist as the base will crucify them for giving into Obama and the Democrats.
3) Democrats have no incentive to make any real concessions to Republicans without extracting a price in return: actual Republican votes.
Thus we're potentially going to see Republicans VS Insurance Industry and Big Pharma.
With Sebelius and the Abortion lobby, the Republicans and their interest groups aligned. Not so now with health care.
Posted by: myrtle parker | April 29, 2009 1:41 PM
Democrats are assuming the absence of significant Republican support and moving ahead on a strategy that leaves space for them at the table but can succeed even if they never enter the room.
With a big caveat: the policy specifics could change the political dynamic. If, when the plan comes out, the CW is that the plan is too costly with government taking a too large of a direct role in health care, Democrats may seek bipartisan support and scale back the plan accordingly. The difference between the stimulus package and health reform, is the former had strong support from non-partisan circles and the media's coverage reflected that. Health reform is unlikely to have such universal agreement on the appropriate policy steps (e.g. is a public option critical to the reform of our system in the eyes of a non-partisan health policy expert?), so the media's coverage of health reform is a big unknown.
Posted by: wisewon | April 29, 2009 1:42 PM
The point of the bill is passing it, not passing it pretty.
The problem is that Obama doesn't get that.
He'd rather have no bill at all -- or a completely ineffectual, inadequate bill -- than pass one without the blessing of the deranged rump of the GOP.
He's made that clear in a million ways. He essentially gave up on passing a stimulus that would be adequate to halt the economic crisis, because he didn't want to appear as one of those mythical "nasty, partisan democrats" -- he announced at the beginning of the process that the bill would be passed with the consent of the GOP, or there would be no stimulus at all.
And we are now seeing the bitter fruits of that capitulation -- a GDP contracting at an annualized rate of SIX PERCENT, with no end in site.
And now he'll do the same with health care.
Heckuva job, Barry.
Posted by: moron | April 29, 2009 1:57 PM
I think that the Republicans are going to come out against health reform, much like they did against the stimulus. The difference is that now Obama has learned his lesson. The voters want health care reform, let the Republicans go onto their teevee shows and shout against it. It will only serve to cement them as the party of no.
Posted by: Cols714 | April 29, 2009 2:29 PM
The Republicans have no incentive to back reform at this point and can only obstruct and take a wait and see attitude. If implemented there are many warning signs it may fall on its face. When it happens they will hang it as an albatross around the Democrats necks. There is little doubt it will significantly affect Medicare recipients care and those with private insurance. You can't add 47 million to the mix with no change in infrastructure and have no effect on those with (see Mass.) The blame at that point is focused like a lazer beam on those in charge and there will be alot of political hay to be had.
Posted by: jenga | April 29, 2009 4:30 PM
Whether the public wants reform or not is up for debate. If that was the only issue voters were voting on, the 47 million uninsured would be a solid voting block and the Democrats would have won every election since 1994. When they say no to reform they really have nothing to lose and more to gain. They have zero to gain with support.
Posted by: jenga | April 29, 2009 4:43 PM
I always thought that Obama and/or Sebelius should have made a clear point: Sebelius either got to a vote *quickly*, or she was going to run for Senate in 2010.
I don't think the GOP really wanted Browny's seat to be so open to the Dems taking it. Without Sebelius, it's an uphill climb. With Kathy, it would be a favorite for flipping to Blue.
I would think that would have moved things along faster.
John
Posted by: tosh | April 29, 2009 5:34 PM
I'm not sure that either party makes any gains trolling for votes/concessions from the other side. Health care is going to be a binary debate. If it is successful, the Democrats get to bask in another 40 year congressional majority. If it's not, well, the alternative is too terrible to quantify.
Posted by: pghguy | April 30, 2009 9:06 AM
http://www.wowgold-powerleveling.com/
Posted by: wow power leveling | July 30, 2009 1:00 AM
welcome to goodnikespace
nike shox.
Posted by: nike shox | November 16, 2009 2:45 PM