The ObamaCare Train Wreck Keeps A Rollin ... Reid thinks he has 60 votes

Thank you Ben Nelson D-Neb (you stupid a-hole). In Congress, accepting bribes are perfectly legal.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are hell bent on this government controlled freak show that will wreck the economy; wreck health care and wreak havoc on us already over-taxed folks.


Nelson Caved for This? [Douglas Holtz-Eakin]

I’m sitting here digesting the news of Ben Nelson’s caving to the pressure and the Dems passing the Reid bill. I don’t get it. Honestly. I realize that passing a health care bill has become a political imperative. But I don’t understand why this bill meets the need.

To begin, it is extremely unpopular. Sixty four percent of Americans don’t think it meets their priorities for reform. And it will be even more unpopular in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 — years in which the harsh medicine of higher taxes and regulatory takeover will produce sharp premium increases and less satisfactory care. Only in 2014 does the massive redistribution start, and Dems might get some relief from their purchased constituencies.

On top of that, the schedule is now such that they will have to go back to the House in early 2010 and deal with a likely revolt against the absence of a “public plan” and the tax on “Cadillac” plans. So, just at the time when Obama is going to need Dems to close ranks and support him on Afghanistan, the ranks will be splitting. Why pass a bill that will create more problems for the divided party?

Finally, it is now clear that the pressure is rising over the massive spending and deficits. Obama will clearly want to devote substantial rhetorical effort on this front in the State of the Union speech, and put out a budget that has at least cosmetic fiscal courage. To do this at the same time he might be signing a budget-busting $2.5 trillion health-spending bill will make a mockery of the effort.

So, count me disappointed that we didn’t get real reform. But count me baffled as to why we got this.


'reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care' [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
More Kristol:

CBO is explaining that the legislation's claim to fiscal responsibility requires cutting in half the rate of growth of per capita Medicare spending. And, according to CBO, absent magical greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care, accomplishing those fiscal goals might well require reducing access to health care and/or diminishing the quality of health care. So less access and lower quality is a very real possible consequence of this legislation. This is a point critics of the bill cannot allow to be lost in all the hubbub.


I'll Have A Blue Dog Christmas Without You [Mark Steyn]

Kathryn, re your Facebook friend who asks, "Can we officially retire the phrases 'blue dog' democrats and 'pro life' democrats? Because there is no such thing:"

As I wrote back in the summer, "Put not your trust in Blue Dog Democrats." It was folly to bet the Republic on the likes of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and other "moderates" who are, by definition, trimmers and accommodationists.

By contrast, Barney Frank and the more ambitious Dems are thinking long-term. And, if it's a choice between getting government health care or keeping Ben Nelson, it's no contest.

Not to keep quoting myself ad nauseam, but as I said to Hugh Hewitt a couple of months back:

I think the administration is willing to take the hit. In other words, to get health care, they would be willing to reduce their majority, and perhaps even lose their majority in the House and the Senate, because they know it’s a game changer. Now to sell that to individual Senators and Congressmen, you’ve got to have something up your sleeve for them... There are strange elements in play here. But they’ve factored into the whole business a potential, I think, a potential significant loss in the year 2010, in next year’s elections.

I've been saying for a year now, in NR and NRO, that the object for savvy Dems is to get this thing passed in whatever form because, once you do, there's no going back.

Kim Strassel in yesterday's Journal gets it:

So why the stubborn insistence on passing health reform? Think big. The liberal wing of the party—the Barney Franks, the David Obeys—are focused beyond November 2010, to the long-term political prize. They want a health-care program that inevitably leads to a value-added tax and a permanent welfare state. Big government then becomes fact, and another Ronald Reagan becomes impossible. See Continental Europe.

Just so. And that's worth whatever hit they have to take in 2010. Every time I make the point, someone says, oh, Jim Webb this or Byron Dorgan that, or have you see Harry Reid's numbers in Nevada? Oh, please. We've just seen what happens when you make Ben Nelson your Maginot Line. The Dems are thinking strategically; the Republicans are all tactics.


In a Representative Democracy, You Don't Give Up [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
You fight. Just in the last minute, Tom Price's office said that to me.

And Bill Kristol wrote it, reminding that:

Pyrrhus's victory became Pyrrhic because the victorious party lost many of its supporters—but also because the opposition didn't abate in courage, was able to gain new recruits, and had the force and resolution to go on.

It's understandable to be disappointed and dismayed, but really, they've had the numbers, this should have happened long ago. But people are not happy about what's happening, and they should have something to say about what's transpiring as they try to live their lives.


Buying the Left, Too [Stephen Spruiell]

Earlier this week, Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders expressed his disappointment with the Senate bill, particularly its lack of a government-run insurance plan, and went so far as to say, "As of this point I am not voting for the bill." Now Sanders appears to be back in the fold.

If you're wondering how Reid secured his vote (I was), here's how:

$10 Billion More for Community Health Centers will Revolutionize Care WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

It's enough for Sanders, but will it be enough for the 60-plus House progressives who promised not to vote for a health-care bill that lacked a public option?


Budget Buster [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Jim Capretta on Reid's "compromise."


NRLC [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

has an even longer takedown of what Nelson signed onto.And this, from Boehner's office:
Fixed it is not. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan. Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions. ... the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions. The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.