The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn seems to have a report contradicting news a smaller version will be introduced:
I checked with Pelosi's office, though, and that interpretation seems to be wrong. Via e-mail, spokesperson Brendan Daly saysWell, shame on us for interpreting Pelosi's statement to mean a new smaller version would be released. I suppose Major Garrett at Fox News got this statement all wrong then:
The Speaker was referring to the compromise between the House and the Senate that the President unveiled last week--not a new smaller bill. As she has said repeatedly, she is committed to passing comprehensive health insurance reform.This is consistent with the message Pelosi and her lieutenants sent over the weekend in a series of television interviews.
If somebody is going to back away from comprehensive reform, it won't be Pelosi.
"In a matter of days, we will have a proposal," Pelosi said, pointing to Obama's forthcoming bill. "It will be a much smaller proposal than we had in the House bill, because that's where we can gain consensus. But it will be big enough to put us on a path of affordable, quality health care for all Americans that holds insurance companies accountable."Cutting through the semantics and political doublespeak, it seems we are about to see a version of ObamaCare that incorporates two ideas presented by Republicans at the health care summit on Thursday. The plan is likely to include some versions of medical malpractice reform and an allowance for insurers to sell across state lines. This isn't likely to make for a smaller bill, but in Nancy Pelosi's world this will make it bipartisan even if it fails to win a single Republican vote. Allahpundit sums this up perfectly:
And if it has Republican ideas, why shouldn’t it be rammed through with reconciliation, right? Voila — Plan C, the first “bipartisan” bill in history aimed at a party-line vote.Perhaps they cut 50 pages somewhere and this constitutes "smaller" in Democratic spin.
No comments:
Post a Comment