Post Script: In general, a House majority is 218 votes. Because of the vacancies, the new majority threshold is 217. Just a little something to keep in mind.

Steve, if Pelosi got 220 votes on the first go-round, and only needs 217 now, then is it necessary to convince opponents to change their mind to pass this bill? Apparently there are still 217 "Yes" votes in the chamber.

If a Congressman has voted "Yes" once, they are pretty much locked in right? I mean, how in the world do you vote for health care reform, then vote against health care reform, kill the bill, and explain to your base why you killed it after voting for it the first time, then explain to independents where you actually stand on the issue without looking like a flip-flopping weasel?

Good luck threading that needle.

The problem, of course, is Stupak and his confreres. Bear in mind Stupak voted yes on the House bill but says he'll vote against the Senate's bill because of its less-punitive abortion language. And Stupak probably has enough folks in his corner to kill the legislation -- hence Pelosi's heavy lift.

You'd think all the other Yeses would understand they're locked in but I don't think so. The political climate for reform has eroded dramatically since the House vote in November, and the Ike Skeltons of the world would now prefer to vote No and take their chances with their constituents.

In any event, the ONLY way to exert pressure over these representatives is via primary threats. Unfortunately, it's too late in the day to recruit credible challengers, the money required to run in both primaries and the general, etc. etc. Steve Benen may continue to chirp the rosiest scenario but the fat lady has begun to sing.

Were I Obama, I would simply say that the Democratic constituents of any Democratic congressperson who votes no should vote Republican in November.

Some Democrats think the Senate bill, even the House bill, is such weak tea in offering competition to the rapacious BHIPpers (Big Health Insurance Parasites) that it may well be worse than nothing.

Lots of voters think the same thing and are bitterly disappointed. They think the current offerings, well, suck big time.

Mandates to buy from the BHIPs, subsidies to keep the BHIPs overpriced "affordable" to some of those who can't afford their offerings hit taxpayers twice: high premiums and taxes to let those not well off to pay high premiums. So the Parasites get to make money hand over fist.

There are precious few real controls on how much the BHIPs can raise rates, and now Ben Nelson has apparently come out against the proposed federal regulation (or is it review? No details, really, so it could be Obama's favored voluntary compliance) of BHIPpers' rates.

The House "public option" will be small and must pay for itself, which, after the BHIPs drive out the sickest, the older, and the likely to get sick, will have the sickest, most nearing Medicare age and will become unaffordable.

Obama knows what would work single payer, and he took it off the table -- in order to keep the BHIPs in high profits. Good grief!

What would work, what we need, what people want (6 of 10 in WaPo poll, 60% in IA poll) is a government run program similar to Medicare.

Medicare (Improved!) for All...with a robust private option.

Improved by being fully comprehensive with dental and vision; nobody out, everybody in, thus community rated in the largest possible pool; coverage from conception to grave; and, would save $400 Billion per year over what we pay now.

Check out PNHP.org.

The structure exists; people could be moved into Medicare immeidately. If wished, the transition could start with 50 and above, then, six months later, 35 and obove, etc.

But, since most workers already contribute to Medicare, the mechanism is there to get everyone in now, NOW, NOW!

Gee, Dems might even hold seats in 2010 with a real solution people can understand!

It is so terribly sad that what would help so many, help the nation's finances, was shunted so far off the table no one is permitted to address it at, oh, Obama's town halls and, like, a summit to consider all options.... And the MCM (Mainstream Corpoate Media) barely mentions it as even a remote possibility! They do self-censor so very well to maintain access, eh?

The President of the United States has to be willing to crack some heads. It is that simple. If this is beneath him. If he is unwilling to do this. He will fail. But make no mistake. No congressman has the ability to withstand the pressure of determined President of his own party. Not a single one of them.

Not to understate the difficulty in the house, but it is not necessary to get some dems who voted no to switch. If they hold the 217 dems who voted yes, it passes 217-216.

we can lose a few in the Stupak block; where we have to concentrate is the allegedly fiscal conservative block. Report after report shows that HCR is fiscally conservative. confront them with facts, put them on the spot about why they resist the facts, and have both Pelosi and Obama twist their arms - hard. show them the polling supporting getting something done on HCR, and make clear that it will be them -- not Stupaks group -- who gets the blame.

I trust Pelosi to know what she's doing with vote counting...Hopefully that trust will be rewarded.

I know it is unsavory. I know we don't like to talk about it. And unfortunately it appears that Mr. Obama may find this distasteful. But one of the things that a President needs to do is use the vast power of the government of the United States of America to find the nuts of all the member of his caucus so that he can put them in a vise and squeeze the holy living shit out of them when circumstances require. This is not really all that difficult and when approached with the proper spirit can even be entertaining.

Just to be clear, doesn't passage require a majority of members present for the vote? 217 if significant only if all 433 members are present. If the final vote is 214 out of 427, I'll be just as happy.

Show me a congressman who is willing to defy his President and I will show you a President who doesn't understand his options.

Post Script: In general, a House majority is 218 votes. Because of the vacancies, the new majority threshold is 217. Just a little something to keep in mind.

Wait a second -- a majority of the House is 218 members. It's been that way ever since the first Congress of 1789 (even though there were fewer than 100 members at the time). If the Democrats take the unprecedented step of passing reform with only 217 votes, it will represent a perversion of democracy. Haven't you seen the video of Obama and Biden speaking out against the "nuclear 217-vote option" back in 2005, when George Bush was trying to get judges confirmed by the Senate with only 217 votes? Don't you know that Hitler assumed dictatorial powers with just 217 votes?

(For the sarcasm-challenged, no, I'm not serious. Just giving you tomorrow's GOP talking points today.)

Why not start with a bill just outlawing recission-that should really put the Republicans on the spot and buck up everyone's spirits.

I think Obama is very ill advized to come down on the side of the not popular Senate version and to not side with the very popular House version.

Not only is there an election comming up that Obama needs the Democrats to carry in a big way, but even if the Democrats can pass the Senate version 1) the House will never be entheusastic about it, 2) the Republicans can, quite truthfully, campaign aginst Democrats for passing an unpopular piece of legislation 3) from where I stand, at least, my personal economic situation will be worsened by the Senate version and would not be worsened by the House version that contained opt in, as I am a single buyer who can not afford the $500 to $1000 per month of private insurance of the Senate mandated insurance.
I already loose 30%+ of my income in withholdings, and this will take 25% - 50%+ of the remaining. Of that 25-50% I only benifit if I am ill and can at the same time pay premiums and co pays, caps, doughnut holes. Possibly with no income for the period of the illness or injury.

How is that a benifit?