SCREW Rahm!-The current plan is for the House to take a dive (Pelosi Should Call The Bluff & Add PO)

[kpete]

Rachel is right: Nancy Pelosi should call the bluff and put a strong PO — a Medicare buy-in available through the exchanges — in her reconciliation bill.

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9LAh7U8YhQ&feature=player_embedded

The current plan is for the House to take a dive. They’re expected to vote for an unpopular Senate bill at the risk of their careers. In exchange, they get to vote on a reconciliation fix they fear will not be sufficient to save them, while leaving out key elements they know they’ll need to sell the plan.

They know most of the "liberal" Obama supporters expect them, not the Senate, to take the risks, since no one is demanding the Senate pass the original House bill and fix that if needed. Once they adopt the Senate bill, House members have no assurance the Senate will follow through and enact the promised fix, and they suspect many in the Senate, and probably the White House, don’t care if the House takes the hit.

The truth is, the Senate and White House will force the liberal House to bear all the risks, but no matter what happens, Rahm Emanuel will call it a "win."

Rachel is right: Nancy Pelosi should call the bluff and put a strong PO — a Medicare buy-in available through the exchanges — in her reconciliation bill. Then let the White House carry the burden and the risks of getting its signature agenda proposal through the Senate. That would be a great "win" for Rahm and his boss, but they need to earn it

more:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/34919

[saracat]

1. Except that Rahm and his "boss" do not support either a PO or a medicare buy in.

It goes against the deal they made.

[Cleita]

7. If they passed a bill with a Medicare buy in, do you think

Obama would veto it? If that happens, I won't vote for him in 2012.

[mod mom]

8. They sold us out to corporate America.

:mad:

[Mari333]

2. indeed, screw rahm and his corporate payoffs

knr

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. K&R....And Grayson's bill needs to be made a PRECONDITION to passage :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7909315



:hi:




:kick:

[bbgrunt]

4. and unfortunately, Nancy no longer has

a table to put things on. It was converted to firewood when it became apparent that it was a superfluous piece of furniture in her office.

[CrispyQ]

6. Damn straight!

"Drain the Swamp" Pelosi.

Yeah, right. :eyes:

[RandomThoughts]

5. If they are trying to put it in Nancy Pelosi's court, saying she is responsible for if it passes.

If the votes exist she should put it in. If the votes are there, it should be in, they can't be allowed to just shift blame.

Nancy Pelosi got a public option through the house already, it would be consistent to put one in the Senate bill if the votes are there.

If they are saying the votes are there, and they are not, then that is no different then them saying they will pass any reform after the Senate bill was passed.



The concept is Senate bill passes in house, then house adjustments pass because they trust the Senate will pass reconciliation. If they say the votes are there for public option, they should be forced to vote against it if they are not being honest, or vote for it if they are not playing politics.

If Senators that are voting against it wont go public with that, and that is the reason it would not be in the bill sent from the house, those Senators should be known. It is wrong for them to say they wont vote for it to not get it in the bill, then turn around and say they would to avoid the public reaction. If they are playing that game, then it has to go in to end that game.

Cause it ain't a game.

[SOS]

9. NYT Magazine cover story on Rahm tomorrow

Hired as a legislative mechanic who can get things done.
The Washington consensus: Failure.
He'll be gone after the election.