The diary by ncyeve poses an interesting poll question. Which is worse for Democrats, to pass the Senate HCR bill as-is, or to pass nothing? This is practically a political Sophie's Choice. The Democrats in Congress have backed themselves into a corner. A few Senators are preparing for a lucrative post-Senate career in the insurance industry, and, thanks to them, the rest have reason to be worried about becoming a minority again.
It also looks like the reconciliation sidecar, which simply implements the deal that the Senate leadership had supposedly agreed to, isn't happening. It may be that Harry Reid is just too much of a "gentleman", and can't resist an opportunity to roll over. Or maybe his whip count can't reach 50, though I find that hard to believe. But it hasn't happened.
But maybe, just maybe, the non-super-majority can get around to it later. Many of us think that the House shouldn't pass the Senate bill as-is because it has so many flaws that it will be electoral poison. Is that true?
The individual mandate isn't popular. In the House version, it's coupled with a limited, tiny public option that at least gives the public some hope. With a real public option, the mandate polls positive; absent one, it polls poison. The Yugo Tax is horribly unpopular. The House version taxes the very wealthy instead, which polls better except among those who wouldn't vote for us anyway. The rumored sidecar compromises and raises the Yugo Tax to a Camry Tax, a bit less unpopular. A smart sidecar could even add some kind of public option, even if it's just self-paid Medicare for the over-55s.
So let' say that the House simply passes the Senate bill now. And the Senate, true to form, doesn't go along with the deal and doesn't fix anything. So the Senate bill becomes law, going in to the election. And a bevy of Scott Browns have a field day.
Now two things could happen. One is that the nay-sayers are wrong, and the Senate bill proves to be wonderfully popular, DeMint's "Waterloo" is defused, and Democratic electoral fortunes rise. The other is that the nay-sayer are right, and the Democrats find themselves in the fall facing another 1994 or worse.
What happens in, say, September or October if that second scenario turns out to be true and the Democrats in the Senate see disaster looming? Would they then recognize that they're being beaten by a clue stick and pass changes? Would doing so help?
I don't know for sure but my gut feeling is that it may be worthwhile to pass the Senate bill now, with the understanding that Reid, facing his own defeat, will use his dying breath to get a reconciliation bill through in time for the election. And maybe even the White House will get involved in what it has allowed to remain almost purely a legislative matter. Because if the Republicans pick up a lot of seats in November, nothing will get fixed, and nothing better will get passed until the next R-president creates another Bush-sized disaster.