[Apologetics] Dem leaders coalesce on plan to pass Obamacare!

[Art Kelly]

Earlier today, a message from Dick Morris at
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/01/25/pelosi-and-reid-plot-secret-pl
an-for-obamacare/#more-710
revealed the details of the Democratic leaders' plan to pass Obamacare.
 
The AP article below confirms these plans.
 
Art 
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_
2
Dem leaders coalesce on health care strategy
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer  24 mins ago 
 
WASHINGTON - Democratic congressional leaders are coalescing around
their last, best hope for salvaging President Barack Obama's sweeping
health care overhaul.

Their plan is to pass the Senate bill with some changes to accommodate
House Democrats, senior Democratic aides said Monday. Leaders will
present the idea to the rank and file this week, but it's unclear
whether they have enough votes to carry it out.

Last week's victory by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts cost
Democrats the 60th vote they need to maintain undisputed control of the
Senate, jeopardizing the outcome of the health care bill just when Obama
had brokered a final deal on most of the major issues.

"We've put so much effort into this, so much hard work, and we were so
close to doing some significant things. Now we have to find the
political path that brings us out. And it's not easy," the No. 2 Senate
Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said Monday.

The new strategy is as politically risky as it is bold. There is
widespread support for Obama's goals of expanding coverage to nearly all
Americans while trying to slow costs. But polls show the public is
deeply skeptical of the Democratic bills, and Republicans would
certainly accuse Democrats of ignoring voters' wishes.

Obama initially voiced doubts last week that a comprehensive bill was
still viable, but he now seems to be pushing for it. Asked Monday if the
president was backing away from his pursuit of major changes, White
House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded: "No."

"I think the president believes that the circumstances that led him to
undertake greater security for people in their health care ... existed
last year, last week, and this week," Gibbs added.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said last week she does not have
the votes to pass the Senate bill without changes. Democratic
congressional aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because the
issue is in flux, said the latest strategy involves using a special
budget procedure to revise the Senate bill.

The procedural route - known as reconciliation - would allow a majority
of 51 senators to amend their bill to address some of the major
substantive concerns raised by the House. That would circumvent the need
for a 60-vote majority to hold off Republican delaying tactics.

The remaining alternatives are unappealing: scaling back the health care
bill to less controversial, smaller pieces, or setting it aside
altogether.

Momentum is growing to pass the Senate bill with compromises agreed on
by the president and congressional leaders, said Ron Pollack, executive
director of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group. "Are they there yet?
No," he said.

Among those arguing for a quick strike on health care is David Plouffe,
the political adviser who helped elect Obama president and has just been
summoned back by the White House to help coordinate this year's
elections.

"I know that the short-term politics are bad," Plouffe argued in a
Washington Post op-ed. "But politically speaking, if we do not pass it,
the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters
will have no ability to measure its upside." Among the immediate
benefits: allowing dependent children to stay on their parents' coverage
into their mid-twenties, and assistance for seniors in the Medicare
prescription coverage gap.

How the new legislative strategy would work has not been fully
determined. Would the House vote with only an assurance the Senate will
make fixes?

One problem is that it may not be possible to resolve all the
significant differences between the House and Senate bills through the
special budget procedure. Only changes that affect taxes and government
spending would normally be allowed to pass with a majority of 51
senators, rather than a 60-vote majority.

It's unclear that other major disputes - for example, how to restrict
taxpayer funding for abortions - could be settled similarly. On
abortion, the House bill is more restrictive than the Senate version.

"Provisions that have no budgetary effect would clearly run afoul," said
James R. Horney, a former Senate Democratic budget aide now with the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

That means Democrats might be able to resolve differences between the
House and Senate on economic issues: taxing high-cost insurance plans,
closing the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit, and
providing subsidies to help middle-income households pay insurance
premiums. Yet they still could be left with a bill that cannot pass both
the House and Senate. 

Abortion opponents say they will count any House vote for the current
Senate bill as favoring new government subsidies for abortion. "I
suggest they do it the other way around, fix it first and then pass it,"
said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life.
"Members will be held accountable for what they actually vote for. It
really doesn't do to say, `I voted for something, but I was against
it.'" 

___ 

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20100125/e8b17bad/attachment.html>