That's what Nancy Pelosi said when asked yesterday if she had enough votes to pass the health care bill on Saturday. That means she doesn't yet have it. She is scrambling, according to the
San Francisco Chronicle: "Pelosi's party holds a 40-vote margin over Republicans in the House,
but Democrats in swing districts are worried about the cost and reach
of the health care bill amid widespread joblessness and enormous
federal deficits. Leaders sought to resolve lingering disputes over
abortion and immigration."
Every other news report on the subject notes that the votes are not yet there. (
Reuters,
New York Times,
Washington Post) So why try pushing this vote through now, knowing that the Senate isn't going to consider it until next year? Because, as predicted, given the sentiments revealed in the elections on Tuesday--the massive shift of
independents to the GOP (in the case of Virginia, 66%-33%)--Pelosi will certainly not be able to push it through next year, for the self-preservation of circa 50-60 more modderate Democratic Congressmen will really kick in and they will then have to vote against it. Pelosi knows this. But they still might oppose it on Saturday. And yet, Saturday is her best shot.
But in fact, I expect the House NOT to vote on Saturday because I think there will be at least a couple dozen Dems who will either say they will oppose it or will claim that they haven't yet made up their minds; Pelosi will have to back off, else there is a chance that she will lose the vote and that would be worst thing that could happen to her. She would lose all authority (and honor). This scenario will depend on how each member reads the polls is their district. If I read the polls right there will be no vote on Saturday, the moderate Dems self-preservation is already kicking in.
Addendum: The fact that the
unemployment rate has jumped to 10.2% and is likely to go higher is not going to help Pelosi.
Nor should the 10.2% unemployment rate help Pelosi & Co. They offer one stupid and ruinously expensive proposal after another and call them all wisdom.
Leaders are not going to be able to resolve those problems of abortion and immigration because they are insoluble problems in a government plan, except if we all agree to pay for abortions and the inevitable immigrants who will need medical care in emergency situations. Paying for immigrants would come sooner and paying for abortions would come later and gradually, but come they will. We have set the ethical issues of treating the terminally ill or supposedly terminally ill aside for time being, but expense will force everyone to examine the question of "quality of life" for the chronically ill. National health makes us all, especially the young, look at inevitability of death and taxes in a whole new way. Forcing the young into paying for the health care of the old through weird "not a tax" taxes is going to make everyone else's grandmother look like a considerable liability.
--------------------------
But this brings me to an aside: my Navy Corpsman son's wife is carrying my grandchild who has a considerable birth defect, detected through a routine ultrasound. The rate of survival is 95% if the child is delivered in the US in a good NICU. However, he has a snowball's chance in Hell if he is delivered at the Navy hospital where my son works in Okinawa. The Navy is sending her (and maybe my son, too,) to the US probably to Bethesda Naval Hospital for maternity care, the delivery, as well as the post-natal surgeries to repair the defect. This is your national Defense Department dollars at work.
I feel like I should thank the American taxpayer for this, but lacking a loud enough voice, I thank all of you who read this.
Does that mean that, if it passes, it will be a Triumph of the Will?
Peter, it looks like your predictive powers have not improved a great deal since the '06 elections.
Yersinia (Bubonic Plague) - Oh yes, Triumph of the Will... Hitler... Nazis... "Shovel-ready"... Death Panels.... Ovens... Auschwitz... Dachau, etc.. (General insanity?)
https://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/05/holocaust-sign/
With both examples you brought up do you think this path will not lead to a sort of renaissance for eugenics?
to Craig: How do you see the leadership on the left keeping the idea of universal healthcare popular when the burden trickles down. All politicians love easy scapegoats so a sort of eugenics argument would easily be put in place to turn the anger on those who are precived to be sucking the system dry. My concern is how do they sell this to the angry masses. How does Europe get away with it...I have heard that Europeans get much more for their socialism than we ever have so mabye having decent infastructure and public facilities helps; but that's not going to be the case here. I don't even think the Goldman sachs crew running things would have the gall to print up what it would take to rebuild the infastructure, although they would rake in massive profits by doing so.
Brutus, what I think I am suggesting is that we will see a resurgence in interest in euthanasia. But you are probably also correct.
long those lines, my "report" from Okinawa is that someone up my son's chain of command, in a very logical way, does not think the Navy should be spending money on children with birth defects. Therefore, he is not processing the paperwork on his desk . All he has to do is do nothing and my son, without orders, remains where he is. We only know about this because someone of inferior rank in that office told my son. We are formulating a private plan "B".
People in Europe and Canada have been able to use the US as their private plan "B". If your socialist system will not take care of your condition, you go to another country that will, if you can afford it.
Scanlon: What is your point? The vote was close enough that both sides were scrambling. I don't think the Dems eking out their 220 was something foreseeable; it hardly constitutes a lapse in judgment.
What if the House is presuming that the Senate will have not have the votes and that the legislation will die, anyway?
Brutus, one huge point people seldom remember when discussing the virtues of European socialism is how little they are required to spend on national defense. It's also interesting to note that the only reason the bill passed at all was because of the amendment which will deny federal funding of abortions.
So the republicans save face by not having taxpayers fund eugenics in the open? The consequences if this bill passes are so much greater than that narrow although awful part.
Your point is good in two ways. 1. What do we get from wars?(Just as we have tried to divorce healthcare from the emotional ideas I am talking about tangible things, you could say safety and it would turn into a pointless debate about the meaning of the word.) 2. With European style socialist "in power" why are we spending so much on "defense?" I am not in favor of socialism in any form. I was simply suggesting that it is easier in Europe to stomach when you are able to see some tangible thing coming from it. I would like to have nice roads ect, but all i got was record profits at goldman sachs...which i guess means i can still put that big screen tv on my sears card and I have all the top brands to choose from; erosion of freedom I think not.
For the webmaster: i think there is an issue with the captcha as i have had the same phrase for two different topics with the second one not working. A refresh fixed the bug, Using firefox.