Blue Dogs could be part of a rather massive betrayal.

Betrayal? Their obligation is to their constituents and the U.S., not to the Democratic leadership. If they think that the law is bad, their obligation is to vote against it.

Democrats are more interested in protecting insurance companies than in improving the general welfare of the American people.

Dems today are significantly to the right of Nixon on this topic, you know. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I hear a lot of "something's better than nothing" but in actuality, a bad bill owned solely by Dems that causes one problem after another is NOT better than nothing, it's a one-way ticket back to the Bush years, only more so. Any honest thinking person would not want that, but I can also say that there aren't many Dems I'd be willing to vote for after the last few months.

How about going back to the original intent of elected officials representing constituents?

Devastating for whom? Probably everyone (on the Democratic side). There wouldn't be a Blue Dog left in the caucus after 2010 if they did this (which would be a big positive), but it certainly would hurt Obama.

The positions on healthcare range from 'everything is just fine the way it is' to 'free everything for everybody'.

Somewhere in the middle is a responsible overhaul of this disaster heading for a meltdown, and kicking the can down the road is no longer an option.

Unfortunately- to quote Joe Scarboro, of all people-"Nobody ever lost an election for voting no."

And, as resident One Note Johnny, I say again: getting re-elected is all that counts. . .

To clarify - the Blue Dogs would either lose a primary or a general election after something like this.

Matt, Matt, Matt,

You know there is a big difference between voting against a bill you think is bad for constituents and/or country and openly negotiating to cut the legs out from under your own party, don't you? Voting down a bill you disagree with is one thing; trying to pass a bad bill that a President of your own party would be forced to veto would be something else.

Any GOPer who tried this would swim with the fishes politically and we both know it.

That being said, I doubt there's anything to it. This is just another attempt by the GOP to spread the meme that the Dem leadership has lost control of the debate IN BOTH HOUSES.

If Democrats and progressives would simply start calling Republicans and people like them Ignorant Savages we would quickly be seeing a lot of 'Proud to be a Ignorant Savage' t-shirts.

It puts things in perspective.

I think that this is nothing but a head fake and feint on the part of the GOP, and speaking as a Democrat, I for one refuse to self-undermine my own confidence in our position by giving credence to what in all likelihood amounts to nothing more than unsubstantiated political gossip.

Most certainly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows how to count votes in her own caucus, and she wouldn't be taking her now-oft-stated public stance of Health care reform, including the public option, if she didn't have private confidence in her own position.

Grow a pair, Steve. "If" means exactly that. To allow the word to imply some vague but increasing sense of certitude is the height of folly during a high-stakes political debate such as this, and is the equivalent of bluffing yourself into folding during a poker game when you hold a full house.

Oh hale no.

And Joe Scarborough is a moron. No one ever lost an election for voting no? Tell that to Max Cleland. Or, you know, any number of politicians who've had their no votes thrown back in their face. John Kerry and the military funding? No votes on tax cuts turn into votes to raise taxes. So yeah. That attempt at at empty adage is just plain FAIL.

HR 3400 repeals the stimulus act and would be vetoed. And at least several Blue Dogs support Schumer's version of the public option, also endorsed by Howard Dean. What's more important than getting people to support health care reform is getting them to understand that the public policy outcome of a good bill more than makes up for the necessary cost. The money is there--we just have to convince ourselves that we want to spend it.

You might have to change that message about Republicans having "no plan." It is a very interesting year, so far. I think there are still seats for my talk this evening.

If there aren't 40 of these Blue Dogs willing to do this, it doesn't matter what they do, because they wouldn't make up a majority.
That means roughly 15.6 percent of House Democrats would have to desert their party, cripple their President politically, and pretty much insure electoral disaster, one in which they'd be the most likely victims.
Sorry. This sounds to me like a few frauds talking big.

I should hope the devestating results would be a big, fat veto.

What exactly does the Republican bill 3400 say?

And now we know why Grassley has been trying to buy time for the Republicans to co-opt the Blue Dogs.

And for those who would argue that the Blue Dogs are working for their constituents and voting against a bill that would hurt them, it isn´t their constituents that the BD's are worried about. It's their source of financial aid, the insurance companies and other parts of the health business. No one in their right mind argues that the Democratic proposals will hurt people or will cost more than the various wars we have going on are costing.

And given that the Republicans put those wars and other big spending projects on the nation's credit card, when are they going to get around to paying for them?

But if Cassidy's comments this morning were accurate, Blue Dogs could be part of a rather massive betrayal.

Because as we all know, Republicans never lie.

Come on, Steve. You're falling for the oldest ploy in the book.

Blue Dogs could be part of a rather massive betrayal

Are you kidding? People are surprised by this?

My only surprise is that it has taken this long for the so-called Blue Dogs to openly caucus with the Republicans.

The idea that the majority should give in to the notion that "a bad bill is better than no bill" is nuts. With no bill, premiums would keep going up, deductibles and copays would keep going up, and more and more employers would drop coverage. Many voters who now think they have good insurance would find they don't. And they would know who to blame -- the guys who voted against a good bill. The Blue Dogs know it, and they fear such a vote. They are desperate to find a less risky way to please their corporate sponsors.

would tip the country into open rebellion / revolution.

For anybody who is curious, here's a general overview of the Republican bill (H.R. 3400):

-Tax deduction and an income-related refundable tax credit for health insurance purchased by individuals (i.e., outside the group insurance market)

-The tax credit would be available only to individuals living in states operating a high-risk health insurance pool; and federal grant funding would be provided to states for such pools.

-Incentives would be given for employers to offer employees the option of a contribution toward other health insurance coverage in lieu of the employer plan.

-State insurance laws would be overridden to permit the sale of individual health insurance across state lines.

-Federal rules would be established and application of state laws preempted for insurance provided through association health plans and individual membership associations.

-Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be prohibited for those with incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and restricted for those between 200% and 300% of FPL.

-States would be required to offer group coverage and other private coverage options under Medicaid and CHIP.

-Federal limits on medical liability claims would be established.

-Medicare physician payment would be modified.

-The bill would be financed through reduced discretionary spending, repeal of stimulus bill provisions and other provisions.

What's not in there?

-Nothing about pre-existing conditions.

-Nothing about rescission.

-Nothing about annual and lifetime caps.

-Nothing that would reduce the growth rate of premiums (i.e. nothing to keep insurers from continuing to gouge us).

-Nothing that would reduce overall costs to make Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP sustainable (programs that Republicans hate).

In summary, the goal of the Republican bill (aka: "Plutocracy Protection and Enhancement Act") is to decouple health insurance from employers, eliminate all but the most minimal amount of state regulation, cut spending programs they don't like, pay for them with tax cuts they do like, and continue our spiral to third-world status.

http://covertheuninsured.org/legislative_bill/hr-3400-price

thx for the link, Chris.

Worrying about some alleged deal between Blue dogs and Republicans shifts the focus away from the real problems with the present legislation. (Have you heard Wendell Potter on the Baucus Plan?) We will be forcing people to buy, and subsidizing their purchase of, insurance that isn't worth having. The deductibles and copays on the low-end plans will be so high that they will be paying for almost all their medical services out of pocket anyway. And in the event of something catastrophic, they may be slightly less bankrupt than they would bave been, but that's not any better than being slightly less pregnant. In any case, the fact remains that we will be directly subsizing the very system we all believe is fundamentally corrupt and unsustainable. This is simply nuts!

You might have to change that message about Republicans having "no plan."

You're right. Now the message is that Republicans have finally put forward a plan, and it sucks. It does nothing to resolve the critical issues facing health care in this country but it shifts costs to states and rewards insurers for denying care.

It is a very interesting year, so far.

It has been. Have you been watching the stock market, Mike? Wall Street sure loves Obama. WAY more than it loved Bush. Clearly Wall Street recognizes that Obama's policies are just what this country need to get it back on its economic feet.

I think there are still seats for my talk this evening.

I don't doubt that. You could be giving a talk in your bathroom and I'm sure there'd still be seats available.

"...shifts the focus away from the real problems with the present legislation..." Jason @ 6:50 PM.
Fortunately, there is no "present legislation". There are three bills in each chamber, none of which have even been debated yet. The Senate Finance bill is the only one that is getting any play right now, which is fine with me since everything it now contains was put in there in agreement with the Republican members of the "Gang of Six". In other words, the Finance bill is the Republican HCR plan and that is just how Democratic Senators should treat it.
The entire debate in the Senate will hopefully consist of just how bad the Finance committee bill is; how it doesn't control costs, doesn't prevent recissions or denials of health care and especially how the bill, if enacted, would be nothing more than a blank check written to the health incurance companies. In other words - a budget-buster that doesn't even address, yet alone try to correct, the problems of making health care affordable and, nearly, universal.
I doubt that either the President or the leaders of the Democratic caucuses haven't noticed these flaws nor that they haven't realized what enacting such a bill would cost them during the next election cycle or two.

Howie: You know there is a big difference between voting against a bill you think is bad for constituents and/or country and openly negotiating to cut the legs out from under your own party, don't you?

Sure. The use of the word "betrayal" was just a little harmless hyperbole.

Support for the health care overhaul is falling because of the internal contradictions. The Blue Dogs were never satisfied that the contradictions had been resolved, whereas strong backers were hoping that the internal contradictions would not be seriously examined by anybody.

well, it's nice to know that even though i haven't happened across matthewrmarler in a while, he hasn't learned anything useful in the interim.

insofar as the obama administration wants republican votes, then there are internal contradictions. since there was never any chance of republican support, this was delusional on the obama administration's part, but it doesn't mean support for health care overhaul is falling because of internal contradictions: there is no republican interest in health care overhaul period.

a bill that could get a majority of democratic senators and congress people is there for the taking: we can argue to what extent the final package will be suboptimal (and it will be), but not whether it will "resolve contradictions." there are no such problems other than those based on trying to win the support of people who don't want change.

as for the blue dogs, their number one way to serve their constituency is to remain in the majority. to the extent that they vote in a way that will weaken the majority's position - and their president's position - they should be kicked out of the party and left to fend for themselves with the thugs of the gop.

my guess is that the blue dogs are who they are because the thugs scare them, so they hide out with the nicer democrats.

The consequences would be devastating for the country, but politically letting Republicans and blue dog Dems pass a horrible bill would be great for liberals. Not that Obama would ever sign it, and I assume there aren't enough sell-out Dems willing to put their names on it to overcome a veto.

I don't see how dissing the Dem leadership can be respected. The people of Arkansas should consider electing a real Repub or a real Dem instead of a Blue Dog Dem. It's easier on your nerves when you know better where your rep stands.

Support for the health care overhaul is falling because of the internal contradictions.

You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Just blind ignorant hatred of anything progressive that would actually work and help everyone, along with unshackling our economy.

You are the king of all dipshits, and that's one thing that both parties agree on.

If any blue dogs oppose the Democratic bills based on principle and wishes of their ill informed constituents(including yourself), then show some fucking balls not to mention class and just say so--instead of pulling some craven secretive bullshit. Says a lot about scum like you that you would endorse such behavior.

"You might have to change that message about Republicans having "no plan.""

Oh they have a plan, alright. They want to eliminate the middle class and return to feudalism, albeit a high tech version with surveillance cameras. And they want to impose the death penalty on poor people, non-Christians (that's you, Catholics), and anyone with skin darker than Trent Lott's. And if you need medical care, it's because you didn't pray to Jesus enough.

If health care reform goes bad, Blue Dogs lose to a Republican on 2010 or 2012.

But Blue Dogs gotta reach out to work with Republicans.

Why do Blue Dogs remind me of the people that manage to blow a hole in themselves with their own gun?

Mike K: "You might have to change that message about Republicans having 'no plan.' It is a very interesting year, so far. I think there are still seats for my talk this evening."

Dude, I'd sooner listen to a two-hour musical retrospective on KC & the Sunshine Band.

Clearly Wall Street recognizes that Obama's policies are just what USA need to get it back on its economic peak.

Have you been reading Digby? She has explained this quite clearly. The Blue Dogs are bowing to the health industry and want cover from the Republicans (they made us do it!) when the voters figure out they have been scammed. What's difficult to understand here?

Is there a law stoppping people from pooling their resources to create funding for healthcare catastrophes?