Epilogue on health care reform: the three most important people in its passing

[Spider-Dan]

Now that the reconciliation bill has passed and health care reform is complete (or as complete as can be expected for a generation or two), I wanted to talk a little bit about the key players.  I think two of them might be a bit surprising:

1) George W. Bush.  If Bush doesn't "defeat" Gore in 2000, do we still invade Iraq?  Does the country still elect huge Democratic majorities in 2006-2008?  Unlikely.  The depth of disapproval for the Bush administration and his Congress directly led to the Democratic majorities necessary to enact a plan of this scope.

2) Arlen Specter.  It was his defection that enabled a 60-vote filibuster proof majority, which is what created the possibility of reforms like the elimination of pre-existing conditions and bans on lifetime limits.  Those components would not have survived in a reconciliation-only bill.

3) Scott Brown.  Had he lost his bid to become Senator, the Dems would have still had a 60-vote majority, and it would have been extremely difficult politically to argue for a reconciliation fix when you have 60 votes in the Senate.  However, Brown's win (and the steadfast GOP refusal to vote yes on anything) played right into the Dems' hands; now, they have to use reconciliation because the GOP simply won't vote yes under any circumstances.  This enabled them to shoot for merely 50 votes in the reconciliation bill, which is why you conspicously did NOT hear from persons like Lieberman, Nelson, and Lincoln; nobody cared what they thought on a reconciliation bill because their votes simply weren't needed.

The timing, too, was extremely fortuitous; the 60-vote Senate bill was passed just in time to avoid Brown's election, and Brown won his race just as the fixes were being hotly debated (which quickly switched the discussion to a reconciliation bill).

Overall, I can't complain about the outcome; it would have been nice to have a public option (and I think they could have done it), but the dominoes all fell the Democrats' way and they barely got this passed.  In spite of their own tendencies to screw everything up, they actually got something done and fulfilled a campaign promise.

I almost want to compare this to NE's 2007 season, where every star aligned to allow them to complete a perfect (regular) season... but this time, the Democrats actually won the Super Bowl.

[Dave Gray]

I'm truly surprised they did it.  Usually, the dems run their party like idiots.  They are weak and it always costs them.

I'd like to add some names to your list, but I agree with your 3 names, for sure.

Barack Obama - It's an obvious one, but I really think that it's him and not just whatever Democratic placeholder president would have been in power.  There's no way that this is done under Gore or Kerry or even Hillary Clinton.  I think that the economic climate helped this happen, too.  Obama NEEDED a win.  If he didn't get the bill, he'd risk looking like a do-nothing president.  It caused him to be more aggressive in his push.  Had things been going really well for him, he could've afforded to delay it (which would have been the end).

Nancy Pelosi - I haven't been her biggest fan, because I've always found her divisive.  However, seeing the range of personalities she has to deal with in the house, it's no wonder.  She rallied the troops and got the votes in.  She did her job extremely well.

It really was a perfect storm that I think most people don't realize.  You had to have the right people in the right positions, the political climate had to be just so, and the waning popularity actually helped.  It's crazy how stuff works out.

[bsmooth]

Pelosi is out of touch and unfortunately due to the make up of her district, she is untouchable.
She has been a horrible leader and just because this bill has passed reflects nothing on her leadership. If she had been a great leader in the image of Newt or Tip, then this bill would have made it through earlier, probably with less discord.

[Dave Gray]

I can't agree with you on Pelosi.  I think that she makes a good scapegoat for the party, in general, which is smart since she isn't going to get voted out, plus she also gets shit done.  She's been very successful.  I think that as a general politician, she has the wrong attitude, but as someone who's responsible for getting her people to vote together, I think she's done well, considering that it's hard to get 2 dems to agree on anything.

I think that the 2 parties can't act the same right now.  The tactics have to be different.  The dems need to be more hard-stanced than they have been.  The GOP will not stray to vote with them anyway, and someone like Pelosi is in that mold.

[Fau Teixeira]

i kinda agree with that.

The democrats have nothing to gain by compromising one inch with the republicans. I think the GOP will just vote no to everything the dems propose anyways regardless of how many concessions they get.  The dems could introduce a non-binding resolution stating that the sky is blue and it would get a bunch of republican no votes.

[Spider-Dan]

I didn't include Obama because I do actually believe that this would have gotten passed with Hillary (or an alternate-reality sane version of Edwards).  Remember, Obama basically sat back and left Congress to their own (ineffective) devices until Brown got elected.

I wholehearted agree that Nancy Pelosi was very important.  Unlike Harry Reid (who is completely ineffective and allowed Baucus, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Nelson to totally hijack the discussion), Pelosi wields power like a leader is supposed to; she's like the proverbial iron fist in a velvet glove, except the glove is studded leather instead.  Reid is spineless and I think that speaks a great deal towards why he is in trouble for re-election; no Nevada Democrat is going to be too excited about re-electing a majority leader that does virtually nothing to keep his caucus in line.

[bsmooth]

Pelosi did not bring her party together. It took back door deals, and a last minute executive order to get the last vote to push the bill over the top. That does not speak well of her overall leadership. She could not get the votes on the strength of her leadership and character without major carrots offered by others.

[Dave Gray]

^ I think that's just the nature of politics.  Bills are messy.

Again, I think that it's especially difficult to herd Democrats.  The GOP, to their credit, has had good leadership, in that they make their people fall into line.  I think that, as a party, they've shrunk the umbrella and hurt themselves by pushing folks out, but when it comes to a vote, you can count on them.  Dems have a larger base, but within them are a wider range of opinions.

[Spider-Dan]

Pelosi did not bring her party together. It took back door deals, and a last minute executive order to get the last vote to push the bill over the top.

Um, no.  She didn't have to do any of those things to get the first health care bill passed in the House (the one with a public option in it, no less); she did have to do some of those things to get the Senate's bill passed.  You know, the same bill with such famous components as the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and Gator-aid.

This is the point.  Pelosi didn't allow any of those Senate shenanigans in her caucus; Reid did.  And if it takes an essentially-meaningless executive order (that simply reaffirms the status quo) to "buy" Stupak's vote, I'm all for that.

[bsmooth]

It should not have taken a "worthless" executive order to bring the vote in.

[CF DolFan]

They are just lucky to have gotten it passed. Harry Reid accidently voted "No" both times. 

[Spider-Dan]

It should not have taken a "worthless" executive order to bring the vote in.

That order was for Stupak to save face and not transparently (or, less transparently) cave.

I don't know about you, but to me, the fact that Pelosi got Stupak (and his block) to vote yes without giving up anything of actual value speaks precisely to how strong of a leader she is.  Reid would have given Stupak free Medicaid for Michigan or some similar absurdity.

[bsmooth]

That order was for Stupak to save face and not transparently (or, less transparently) cave.

I don't know about you, but to me, the fact that Pelosi got Stupak (and his block) to vote yes without giving up anything of actual value speaks precisely to how strong of a leader she is.  Reid would have given Stupak free Medicaid for Michigan or some similar absurdity.

We have different thoughts on what makes a strong leader. To me she is not a strong leader.