Nah, we're not starting over. It's a whole new ballgame because a signing ceremony for a health care reform bill is finally looking pretty probable. And all of a sudden, that puts foot-dragging Democrats in a very different position from where they've been.
I've been saying for awhile that, if the bill passes, the November 2010 midterms would turn on who makes the better argument: Dems saying "look what we did for you," and Pubbies saying, "look what they did to you."
As long as there was still a good distance to go before a bill was passed, Business Dog Dems could afford to be Business Dogs - to maintain the charade of being Democrats by being on the side of passing something, while watering it down to please the people who write their campaign checks, and hoping that the bill would die a quiet death amidst all the wrangling. So they didn't have to think much about how it would play out in 2010 if the bill passed, because that was a pretty damned big 'if.'
Not so much anymore. So now they're having to think about passing a bill that they can defend to their constituents when the GOP tries to put the worst face on it that they can.
And that means strengthening the bill so that the GOP doesn't have much to work with.
As Ezra said today, "the fact that Nelson's position has become "states can opt out of the public option" rather than "no public option at all" suggests the goal posts on this are moving, and rapidly." I'll bet they are. And I wouldn't be surprised if they're also moving in the right direction on subsidy levels, out-of-pocket cost caps, and other areas where people will be worried about the effects of this bill on their own budgets.
I can't say whether a bad bill is better or worse than no bill from a practical perspective. But for vulnerable Dems, a bad bill is the worst political outcome possible. Now that a bill looks very likely, that fact is our friend.
