To be, or not to be.

Is there a way I can contact nellie, K7, or AdLib? I have a question.

Several actually.

From Daily Kos:

Will Stupak block the Senate bill?
by David Waldman

So Bart Stupak (D-MI-01) not only opposes the abortion “compromise” that’s allowed the Senate to get to 60 votes for passing it’s version of the health care bill, but he’s been working with the Senate Republicans to undermine that “compromise.”

That sets up an interesting question. How many of the 64 Democrats who voted with Stupak the first time around were just out looking a freebie “conservative” vote, thinking it’d be killed in conference, are going to stick with him if he looks to block the Nelson deal? If Stupak holds 45 or so of his 64, he’d have the numbers to start dictating terms, and Stupak becomes the new Nelson.

And what will Nelson’s response be? Ordinarily, you could expect a Senator whose deal was blown up (especially one who’s been demanding no changes be made to it) to dig in and hold the line. But might Nelson’s fall-back position be that there simply must be some abortion-blocking language in the final product, and if it has to be Stupak’s, well, so be it?

In hindsight — especially in hindsight — allowing that House vote on Stupak appears to be an enormous mistake. I say in hindsight, even though it certainly showed every indication of creating gigantic problems in the future, because it was very simply never 100% knowable whether the bill could have gotten out of the House without allowing it.

But either way, Democrats who simply went along for the ride on that amendment, looking to burnish their “conservative” credentials but all the while secretly thinking it’d disappear in conference, have instead ended up emboldening Stupak to the point where allegedly he felt safe working with the Senate GOP on engineering a deal that endangers this bill all over again.

How many of them were there? No one can say for sure, but we may find out soon enough, if the Nelson language stays intact in whatever package is presented to the House for approval. My guess is that Stupak could lose about half of his 64, and that’d be enough to get the bill through. But don’t expect many of them to own up to flip-flopping on abortion. They’ll have the luxury instead of perhaps saying they’re happier now with the absence of the public option from the bill — unless, of course, they’re pro-public option and anti-abortion.

But even then, it’s not likely you’ll have seen the last of the Stupak amendment. Stupak, I would guess, is now the new Hyde amendment, and that means you’re likely to see it offered as the motion to recommit on appropriations bills (and maybe some others, depending on subject matter) for the foreseeable future.

If so, the repercussions of the late evening decision to allow that vote to go forward in the name of expediency may be with us for a very, very long time.

From Talking Points Memo:

CBO: Health Care Bill Now $871 Billion, Public Option Compromise Does Not Lower Premiums
The soon-to-be amended Senate health care bill will cost $871 billion over 10 years according to a new, long-awaited report by the Congressional Budget Office.

That’s about $22 billion more than the bill was originally expected to cost, before the new changes–including nixing the public option–were offered to the bill. Democrats replaced the public option with a new plan to allow national or multi-state, non-profit insurance plans, regulated by the federal government, to sell insurance on state exchanges.

The CBO has concluded that, on average, premiums will be the same as they would have been if the Senate had the public option, but that the public option saved the federal government more money by putting downward pressure on the premiums of low-cost private plans, which will be heavily subsidized.
The bill remains a big deficit slayer–$132 billion in the first 10 years. Over the next 10 years, CBO warns all estimates are very uncertain. But here’s a key conclusion: “CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law–with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.”

Senior Democratic aides are suggesting that the bill could reduce the deficit, compared to deficits projected under current law, by as much as $1.3 trillion.

You can read the report here (PDF), and a summary on the CBO’s blog here.

From Talking Points Memo*:

One Premium, Two Checks: How Abortion Will Be Paid For Under The Nelson Compromise
In the House health care bill, consumers who receive federal premium subsidies would be forbidden from buying any insurance policy that covers abortion. That provision–the so-called Stupak amendment–threatened to blow up health care reform. Originally, it’s the language Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) wanted to see in the Senate health care bill. In the end, he didn’t get that.

But what he did get might still draw the ire of pro-choice activists and legislators. According to a senior Senate leadership aide, under the Nelson compromise, “[i]ndividuals receiving subsidies will have one premium that they pay with two distinct transactions.”

Put another way: If you’re buying insurance with help from the government, and the policy you want to buy covers abortions, you have to write two checks (or authorize two credit card transactions, etc.) for your plan. If the plan costs $1000 a month, and the insurer plans to sequester $50 to put into a pool that covers abortions, you have to make one payment of $950 and a separate payment of $50.

So far, leading pro-choice Democrats in the Senate say they can abide by that. Here’s Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Patty Murray (D-WA):

We said all along that we wanted to ensure there was a firewall between private and public funds — this compromise achieves that.
We said we would not accept language that prohibited a woman from using her own private funds for her legal reproductive health care — this compromise meets that test.

And we said we would stop Stupak — which we did. Let’s be clear — we were both much happier with the Capps language and the language in the underlying bill.

But compromise was necessary to get a health care bill for the American people, and this compromise achieves that.

We know that Republicans are already gearing up their opposition to the compromise on pro-life grounds. And Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) may be gearing up to oppose it. But what will other pro-life and pro-choice Dems in the House say? We’ll let you know as reactions crystallize.

*Yes, I love that website. It kicks total ass.

From Talking Points Memo:

Snowe Clinches Deal To Turn Logic On Head
After months in which the Senate health care bill was held up over efforts to find some form in which she would agree to sign on to it, Sen. Snowe (R-ME) now says she will oppose it because it is being “rushed.”

From Talking Points Memo Editors Blog

Remember What The Fight Is About
So Ben Nelson is in.

Harry Reid finally has his entire caucus on board for a health care reform bill. The 60-vote bar has been reached (until such time as Lieberman feels the spotlight drifting away, so who knows for sure). Truth be told, this sticking point on abortion coverage was a bigger deal than most people probably realized. It was a real threat to passage of a bill, so the agreement reached last night with a handshake and announced this morning is not mere window dressing.

What were the elements of the compromise on abortion? We’re still learning the specifics, but Think Progress’ The Wonk Room is reporting that there’s language in the bill that expressly provides additional monies to Nebraska (Nelson’s state) for Medicaid funding. I’m not familiar enough with the legislative language or Medicaid funding mechanisms to confirm that’s what the provision is intended to do, but given Nelson’s publicly expressed concerns about reform’s impact on his state’s budget it certainly seems plausible.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) thinks so, too. In an entry on his Facebook page which he also tweeted, Cornyn links to the The Wonk Room post and acidly writes: “Apparently this was persuasive to Senator Nelson.” (Wry-humor points to ABC’s Jake Tapper, who tweets: “first time ive ever seen a Republican senator link to a ThinkProgress blog post.”)

For my money, increased federal Medicaid subsidies for a particular state ranks pretty low along the spectrum of pork barrel politics. Is it good policy to single out one state for special treatment? Probably not. Does it amount to the sort of sleazy special interest politics that awards fat federal contracts to major campaign contributors? Hardly. For those who would equate the two, what planet do you live on?

Reading through the comments on Cornyn’s Facebook page, you’d think Nelson had walked in through the front door of the Treasury building and stuffed his pockets with Ben Franklins on his way to the Caymans — or, as you’ll see below, had turned Christ over to the Romans:

* “Wow, like 30 pieces of silver!”

* “Sen. Nelson, word is you will sell your “yes” vote, and your credibility, for some Medicaid enhancements. If you chose to vote yes on this bill, know that you will have lost any credibility you may have had in the past for 30 pieces of silver. Thanks Judas.”

* “Yes, Nelson is a man of his convictions, which he will gladly SELL to the highest bidder!”

* “I’m sick of congress SELLING OUT the nation for their own selfish interest!!! Landrieu has done it, Nelson has done it. I say vote every last one of you out of office!!!!! You are destroying the nation!”

That last one is what got me. His own “selfish interest”? Trying to secure more money to help his state pay for health care for poor people? Really? It is just like the recriminations Landrieu received for bargaining for more federal dollars for her home state, and equally mystifying. Well, mystifying is overstating it. Equally dismaying.

I guess poor Americans should be thankful that the health care system is so badly broken that middle class voters and corporate employers are affected, because clearly they’d be getting no relief otherwise. When a significant segment of the country considers health care funding for the poor to be on par with bribery, and finds a comfortable home in one of the major political parties, we still have a lot of work left to do.

From Thing Progress The Wonk Room

Nelson