It’s going to be awfully difficult for some of these Democrats to explain why they want a seat in Congress in the first place if all they’re doing is supporting the decree by the Senate that the House is now irrelevant. But even if they get past that, they’ll have to justify voting for a mandate that forces people to pay almost as much to private insurance companies as they do in federal taxes, and allows Aetna to use the IRS as their collection agency — unpopular with Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
|By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday January 6, 2010 11:50 am|
|By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday December 29, 2009 7:45 am|
Many have asked if the progressives in the House will stick together and keep the health care bill from passing if it has mandates but no public option. My answer is: it depends.
I’m frankly not sure how they hope to hold this thing together, because the one thing members fear more than anything is losing their seats. Rahm never worries about the progressives because they have no financial base and they’re in strong Democratic districts, so they risk a lot less voting for a bailout than those in close seats. This time around, there may be enough progressives who are willing to join with the Blue Dogs and vote against a bill with a mandate, but no public option alternative, to push it over the top (or under the minimum of needed votes, as the case may be).