Where are all the votes that passed the original House HCR bill?

[metapunditedgy]

Why are we having to scrape up votes now?

1) Are there any remaining progressives who are voting "No" because they don't think the bill goes far enough?

2) Who are the folks who voted for the original (more-aggressive) House bill, but won't support the watered-down Senate version? Were they just playing games to get concessions/gifts?

Sorry if this has been discussed; I don't understand.

[DJ13]

1. Why are we having to scrape up votes now?

Because this isnt a vote on the House bill, its on the Senate's even worse version?

[metapunditedgy]

2. Exactly. I can think of only two reasons not to support this bill.

The first is that it does not go far enough. (Reasonable, but is anyone really voting no for that reason?)

The other possibility is that the first vote wasn't intended to be taken seriously.

It will be interesting to see a list of those who vote "Yes... no."

[Oregone]

6. Interesting thought. A lot of people can politically position themselves when it doesn't matter

[Skip Intro]

12. Can you think of any to support it?

Would you really turn down 80% and hold out for 100%? At one time?

I don't think things happen like that in politics, or reality in general, although I'm no expert on reality.

[metapunditedgy]

13. Exactly (I think). I don't think the bill goes far enough. But I also don't think

it makes things much worse. So I'd support it while bashing the failure to implement solid reform.

But why else would somebody initially vote for it and then vote against it? There are going to be some interesting stories on this over the next few weeks, is my bet.

[pinto]

3. Some info here -

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/16/us/politics/20100316-health-care-dems.html

[metapunditedgy]

4. So is the Stupak amendment just a convenient excuse

for people to switch their votes? Call me a cynic, but that sounds most likely to me. (And I would be embarrassed to claim such a flimsy excuse.)

[pinto]

7. Buzz is that the Stupak amendment has been dropped & votes based on it aren't needed.

House leadership is saying, publicly, they have the 216.

[Barbara2423]

8. I hope they have the votes and Stupak is out of here.

[metapunditedgy]

11. Yeah, but this thread has me thinking that Stupak is just a red herring.

These people wanted to vote no all along, and now they have a (stupid) excuse.

[NotThisTime]

21. I've been saying he's a red herring for quite a long time... he knows what he's spouting isn't true

[quiller4]

5. NPR and AP are announcing that Dems have the votes. My

Congressperson's office said that Pelosi knew she had 216 by 9 EDT this morning and that throughout the day some of the names would be released.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. The House bill was better than the Senate bill

Many Congressional reps were willing to support a more consumer-friendly House bill but not the insurance company-friendly Senate bill.

[metapunditedgy]

10. Well, that's what I'm wondering. Even Kucinich is voting yes, correct?

Is anybody *really* holding out because the Senate bill doesn't go far enough? Let's find out the reasons over the next few days...

[pinto]

15. The reconciliation process is based on passing the Senate bill, as is.

Reconciliation changes are a separate set of items that can only be considered after passing a "parent" bill, in this case the Senate bill. And those reconciliation changes have to some "direct bearing" on budget issues.

It appears that the House will pass their reconciliation amendments, as a side action, tomorrow morning, then pass the Senate bill to carry them to a reconciliation committee.

[customerserviceguy]

14. This whole thing has been a game of political hot potato

The message has always been, "Get something passed here, if it dies in the other side of Congress, you won't be held accountable for anything."

Voting for the Senate bill changes that. Yes, they'll vote for a flawed reconciliation package, but if the Senate either rejects it, or amends it in even one little way, it would need to go back for another House vote. The Repukes have a winning strategy of dragging this thing out for as long as possible, first in the Congress, then in the courts after that.

The point is to have this thing go out all the way till Election Day, and it will NOT bite them in the ass for doing so.

[metapunditedgy]

16. It's only a successful strategy for the GOP because many Democrats aren't on board, either. n/t

[DFLforever]

17. The only public progressive holdout was Kucinich.

The opposition comes from the right of the party and pro-lifers. Some could care less if there is any HCR. Same as the Repukes. They both represent the "Ive' got mine" wing in politics.

[metapunditedgy]

18. But those same pro-lifers voted yes for the original House bill, right?

So somehow without Stupak, the whole thing is no longer worth voting for?

Call me a cynic... but if they try to claim this is only about abortion for them, I call bullshit.

[DFLforever]

19. But the original House bill contained the Stupak Amend.

The Nelson amendment in the Senate bill is far less onerous.
So Stupak would like the language of his amendment put into the reconciliation bill.

Personally, I think Stupak is much further out on this limb then he intended and would like to be able to vote for HCR which he in fact supports.

So perhaps the White House will offer a face-saving way for him and his now very few colleagues to do so.

[metapunditedgy]

20. It seems like there are so many ways Stupak and followers could "find a compromise",

I have to think that if they were serious about wanting to vote for HCR, they'd find one.

Maybe they're not being offered a chance to compromise now that it has gone this far.