Would a Coakley loss strengthen Progressive's hand on healthcare bill? [View All]

[Mari333]

Would a Coakley Loss Strengthen Progressives' Hand on Health Care?
by: David Sirota
Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:00 by David Sirota

If Democrats lose the Massachusetts Senate race, there are two possible ways to pass a final health care bill: 1) The House will simply pass the Senate bill unamended thus circumventing another Senate vote entirely or 2) The Senate will be forced to use reconciliation to pass an amended conference report. If progressives in the House have enough vote to reject scenario 1, they would be in a good position to make the final bill stronger via scenario 2 - stronger than they even may be able to make the bill right now with a 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate. Here's why:
Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) is now saying that if Democrats lose the Masssachusetts Senate election tomorrow, the party will consider using reconciliation to pass the health care bill. He insists that "even before the Massachusetts" race this was the case, but that's not what Democratic leaders had previously been saying.

For the party, this sudden re-legitimization of reconciliation makes obvious arithmetic sense - Democrats' Senate majority will be 59 and not the 60 votes needed to break a standard filibuster, and so if the House rejects simply passing the original Senate bill with zero conference amendments, Democrats would be forced to use reconciliation in the Senate to pass an amended final bill.

Setting aside the obvious hypocrisy of Democrats previously saying reconciliation was "off the table" in a 60-vote Senate when in fact it didn't need to be, this potential new scenario raises a question: Would a Democratic loss in Massachusetts actually strengthen progressives on the specific issue of health care? Hear me out.



















http://www.openleft.com/diary/16973/dems-inadvertently-signal-that-a-coakley-loss-would-strengthen-progressives-on-health-care