Will The Senate's Refusal To Fix The Excise Tax "Kill The Bill?"

E.J. Dionne:

At least two amendments are essential to getting the bill through the House. They involve reducing the burden of the tax on "Cadillac" health-care plans, which is wildly unpopular with House members and voters; and getting rid of the special Medicaid subsidy deal for Nebraska, which just about everyone hates. Even Nebraska's Ben Nelson, the senator for whom that deal was put together, wants it out.

(Emphasis supplied.) All the caterwauling about "Passing the Damn Bill" will not change that reality. You want to get the "damn bill" passed? Then the Senate must be pressured to gut the excise tax. It's a simple as that. You can't pass the Senate bill in the House unless the excise tax is gutted. Will the excise tax purists in the White House, the Senate and the Village insist on killing the bill if they do not get their way on the excise tax?

Speaking for me only

< Court Day For Charlie Sheen and Dr. Conrad Murray | In A Mood To Win >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think the idea (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    of bringing them all before the cameras could be a good one.

    Will this new 'bipartisan HCR summit' (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:15:43 AM EST
    Obama announced change any of the math? I kind of doubt it, but maybe I'm missing something.

    The WH (3.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Emma on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    doesn't need a bipartisan summit.  It needs a biDemocrat summit.  "Hello blue dogs, meet the House progressive caucus."

    Instead, we may see (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by observed on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    Republicans and Blue Dogs ganging up on Progressives, while the community organizer in chief gazes on approvingly.

    I think it shows a slow learning curve (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:54:25 AM EST
    Republicans won't change their votes, but now they can say they tried.
    It seems to me that Republicans will feel their No's are even more powerful now that Obama is weakened.

    With further concessions Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by esmense on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    may change their votes. What is the point of this summit, other than to provide a chance for Republicans to present and sell their ideas to the public?

    There is no denying at this point that the President's own preferences in terms of policy are much closer to those of the most conservtive Democrats and Republicans than to the preferences of Progressives. And, that he is unwilling to accept a plan that makes any concessions to Progressives. The only way he can get something passed without Progressives votes is to bring on a lot of Republicans.

    That will mean adopting a plan that is basically a Republican plan.

    Can anyone point to anything he has done so far that convinces you that he wouldn't be willing to do that? And, in fact, would prefer to do that?


    That last line should read "wouldn't" (none / 0) (#9)
    by esmense on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    prefer to do that.

    What "learning curve"? (none / 0) (#12)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    still with (none / 0) (#2)
    by kmblue on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    the bipartisan crap.
    Will Obama ever learn?

    He wants a Republican bill (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by esmense on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:05:44 AM EST
    that can pass without conceding anything to progressives in the house and the Democratic base.

    At this point, it is hard to interpret his actions and his desperation to get Republicans onboard any other way.

    With a few simple concessions (eliminate the excise tax, for one), Democrats could pass a bill without Republican help right now.

    But, Obama doesn't want a bill progressives will accept. Why? Perhaps because such a bill would ultimately be less industry friendly than one put together without Progressive input?

    I hate to say it, but I think he's working really hard to serve the industry's interests, not the citizens.


    who's being stubborn? Examine your premise (none / 0) (#10)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    "With a few simple concessions (eliminate the excise tax, for one), Democrats could pass a bill without Republican help right now."

    Actually, with a simple concession like passing the excise tax, we could have a health bill today.  Who are the stubborn ones here?  


    Or with the simple concession (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:56:11 AM EST
    of passing single payer, we'd have health care reform.
    Simplistically calling the problem simple doesn't simplify the matter.