I don't think it would be "absolutely devastating" if journalists put any move "too far to the left" in context, both wrt history & how the rest of the world approaches health care.

I don't watch TV, but I haven't come across much in the way of proper framing in newspapers.

Iowa Sen. Charles "Chuck-it" Grassley announced today he won't be voting for the bill, proving conclusively, if it were needed, that he never intended to vote for it and all his handwringing was really just footdragging. Want any more? "I'm disappointed because I think another couple weeks of negotiation we might have had an agreement," he said. I kid you not.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20091013/NEWS09/910130355/1001/NEWS

On the other hand, Noam Scheiber makes a compelling case that Snowe may not use all of her power for good: "Just imagine the atmospherics of Olympia Snowe getting up on the Senate floor and saying she was so serious about passing health care reform she already voted for it, but that she can no longer support the bill because it's moved too far to the left. It would be absolutely devastating."

I disagee with Scheiber. In that scenario, Snowe's statement would be absolutely predictable. Really. Would anyone (who is paying attention) be surprised?

"she can no longer support the bill because it's moved too far to the left. It would be absolutely devastating."

Devistating? Who cares. If they use the normal voting process reconsiliation a good bill will pass w/o her devistated little brain exploding from the goodness such a bil would do for her constutients. Wait, maybe that would be a good idea...

I suspect the Fox News Party's hissy fit over Snowe's Yes vote for the Baucus plan today won't endear her to later switch sides on health care reform. As much as she may want to be in the driver's seat, keep in mind that the process also drives her.

Sure, absolutely devestating. I'm sure all the citizens are waiting with baited breath to see how President Olympia Snowe feels about the final health care bill. Why, if her pronouncements are so strong, why not just let her write the entire bill herself?

Really, anyone who actually believes people (real people, not beltway pundits) actually give a shit what she thinks about the final bill should have their heads examined for blunt trauma injuries.

What stevio said. She only has power if the Dems continue to be dicks about everything.

Further confirmation the Baucus bill is a bad bill.

It also offers the center-right Dems some cover they've long sought.

It's hard to imagine a Democrat somewhere who could justify their actions with "If Olympia Snowe says it's OK, it must be OK." Then again, maybe not.

"Just imagine the atmospherics of Olympia Snowe getting up on the Senate floor and saying she was so serious about passing health care reform she already voted for it, but that she can no longer support the bill because it's moved too far to the left. It would be absolutely devastating."

I agree with most everyone else. First, what's "devastating" about this? Second, what's "compelling"?

99% of Americans couldn't pick Snowe out of a lineup. 99.9% won't see her make that speech. 100% either think she'll be a RINO or a Republican when the vote comes anyway.

It only matters to people for whom this shit is a fetish. It's process, not policy. And it's wholly irrelevant to what actually happens in the outside world.

"What stevio said. She only has power if the Dems continue to be dicks about everything."

As if Joe Lieberman can be counted on to vote for cloture on health care reform. Having Snowe on board is insurance against a Lieberman double-cross.

This thread is fun because there are so many creative ways to spell "devastating."

dammit, Choc Thunder, I had just taken a sip of overpriced latte as I scrolled to your post. . . thats like 35-cents-worth wasted on the monitor.

On the other hand, Noam Scheiber makes a compelling case that Snowe may not use all of her power for good: "Just imagine the atmospherics of Olympia Snowe getting up on the Senate floor and saying she was so serious about passing health care reform she already voted for it, but that she can no longer support the bill because it's moved too far to the left. It would be absolutely devastating."

I do not find Scheiber's case to be that "compelling" at all, nor would it be "devastating" if Snowe turns around and denounces the merged bill. First, the bill will have too much momentum after it passes today for whatever Snowe says later on to matter, AND by then it would also be too late for it to matter as much since we would be dealing with 100 Senators (60 Dems) instead of just 13. Just you watch...

Having Snowe on board is insurance against a Lieberman double-cross.

You'd think that loss of his committee chair and expulsion from the caucus would be that insurance. The only reason Lieberman has a position of power is because Reid and Obama argued that he needed his vote to override filibusters.

"Just imagine the atmospherics of Olympia Snowe getting up on the Senate floor and saying she was so serious about passing health care reform she already voted for it, but that she can no longer support the bill because it's moved too far to the left. It would be absolutely devastating."

The thing is, it's just not going to move very far. What's still in play right now? There's the public option, where we'll wind up somewhere between a full public option, and one with state opt-out. There's the level of subsidies - 300% or 400% or somewhere in between - where Snowe's in favor of higher subsidies. Then there are some details about the health insurance exchanges, and some other minor stuff.

Maybe the funding sources are still in play, but is she going to say the bill's moved way to the left because of a switch from one funding source to another? That seems pretty ludicrous.

If Snowe makes a statement like that after relatively minor changes in the bill, the only effect will be to destroy her own credibility.

I'd say that, given the relatively small size of the possible changes ahead, she's more or less locked herself in to voting for cloture on the final bill, even if she votes against it in the up-or-down vote. She can hardly say the final bill has changed so much that it doesn't even merit a vote on the Senate floor, after she's voted for the Baucus/SFC bill.

What's "devastating" is that anyone is even still interested in this "debate." We are not talking about healthcare reform; we are talking about sickcare and how to keep the insurance companies funding the criminals who populate the Congress. I include all the dems and their enablers who are unwilling to tell the truth: The Insurance companies are criminal institutions whose only function is to produce revenue/profits for their exec and shareholders.

Healthcare has been left far behind in all of this. When an overweight 4 month old baby can be denied healthcare because he does not fit into an underwriting chart, then the company claims they are grateful for the opportunity to "correct" their policies, I call criminal conspiracy.

At this point, any bill that comes out of this Congress is illegitimate and if the President signs it, I will know that he is under some kind of threat that he may not disclose.I do not believe Obama is that insensitive that he would allow the Insurance companies to dictate his policies.

peace,
st john

This does not necessarily mean she'll vote for reform on the Senate floor, after the Finance Committee bill is merged with the Senate HELP Committee bill.

Who cares? The question is, will she vote to sustain a Republican filibuster threat.

The only good coming out of her vote is that it gets the steaming pile of a bill out of committee so it can be ceremoniously flushed down the toilet of utterly failed policies.

As for Snowe, she's going to have to reconcile her actions with her constituents and the GOP.

Democrats need to go back to their blue dog "moderates" and tell them they have a choice: vote for cloture or kiss your political career goodbye.

They need to be told in no uncertaine terms that a vote for a filibuster will be a guarantee that their ass will be primaried in the next election cycle.

No public option, then let the bill die. Then campaign in 2010 against the Republicans as disablers (including Snowe).

Just say that a bad bill is worse than no bill at all. Even moderate conservatives will agree with that.

After another 20 million or so people lose their health insurance over the next couple of years it will pass on the next go round.

That may sound cruel; but our current system is already cruel and making it worse will not solve that problem.

Snowe's not up till 2012, and may be an ex-senator by then -- persistent rumors have her a gubernatorial candidate, where this issue will have far less saliency.

It's still all about the cloture.

Bravo to Senator Snowe! -Kevo

I hope that the matter is resolved soon and it can help people.

Scheiber's piece seems contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Snowe is for a solid health care reform package and has been her entire career. Her public statements are far more consistent with a Hamlet act regarding her own role in the Republican Party. She's going to vote for cloture and for whatever bill is in front of her and then the die will be cast.

Im glad a republican see's some good in the health plan. Way to go who ever the hell you are...