71 Comments - Will County Woman - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:01 pm: the republicans nationally and in illinois NEED and MUST draft proposal(s) or have talking points that highlight what is so wrong with Obamacare and what they would have liked to have seen instead. it’s just not enough to say no for the purpose of saying no. the republicans have really squandered an opportunity to make a strong case for themsleves thus far. if they continue to simply say no without having anything to offer as a “better” alternative, then they stand to lose in november or not gain as nearly as much as they should or could. for brady, kirk, gop nationally, it’s not enough to say why the dem opponent is no good, you have also say why you are better. if you can’t do that then you won’t win. - shore - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:01 pm: I think it’s a positive for republicans in Illinois. Anything that turns the conversation away from hot button social issues and focuses them on the size of government and taxes is good in unifying the party and helping us with independents. It also takes an issue off the table for democrats in that a problem they were passionate about is now solved and so the base doesn’t have something to get excited about and wanting to turn out to work on. Also the debate brought out the tea parties which put actual energy into a languishing, unexciting movement. Interestingly no one asked my friend mark kirk about abortion and where he stood on the stupak language. It’s interesting because the media seemed to think that would be one of the major challenges his campaign faced in manuevering between the gop base, his own positions and the state. - John Bambenek - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:04 pm: I think it’ll be a net negative for Illinois Democrats… the anti-incumbent mood is thick. It remains to be seen whether it’s a net positive for Republicans. It could be just as easily a net positive for the libertarians, it all depends on what the ILGOP does with it. - Stuck with Sen. CPA - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:10 pm: I think it helps Illinois Dems on balance. Both sides will get a bit of a boost as a virtue of the debate/fight, which will help mobilize their respective bases. My sense though is that Illinois Dems were a bit dispirited and needed the shot in the arm more than the GOP. - Amalia - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:12 pm: I think it will be a positive for the Democrats, once everyone understands it. While it is a risk because most of the bill kicks in quite a long time from now, the simple fact that kids can stay on their parents insurance, pre existing conditions for children will not be allowed by the fall (or about that) makes it a family friendly bill for all families. and an immediate win. but there’s lots of convincing to do. i’m amazed how smart friends do not know what is contained in the bill or that the bill has applications beyond serving those currently not served. even McCain on tv this morning admitted that several of the provisions in the bill would be enacted by Republicans if they were to craft a bill. and the Republicans cannot take credit for those good things now, not one vote in the House. looks like there is going to be a huge effort to communicate the effect of the legislation. perhaps the decision was to spend money after success. that may pay off cause now there will be meat in the message. - Jason - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:14 pm: net positive. from a messaging standpoint, I don’t see repealing this legislation as a winning platform for the GOP. I wouldn’t want to be in charge of telling the ill or parents of kids in college that our plan is go back to the way things were. For Alexi, it will give him a powerful issue to distinguish himself from Kirk. That being said, Alexi is probably the only person I can think of with enough negatives to overshadow this piece of historic legislation. Overall, repealing this bill is going to be going to be a hard sell for the GOP. - collar observer - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:20 pm: Positive for sure - I appreciated the Ray LaHood perspective in yesterday’s Tribune - Why Republicans should support health care reform. There isn’t one member of Congress who represent a district that is without a health care crisis. - George - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:23 pm: I think this will have little to no effect whatsoever. After labor day, all politicos will be primarily worried about the threat of our new alien visitors and what it means for our American way of life. - well - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:25 pm: Net negative for Democrats. Independents HATE this bill and the advantage among independent voters that the Democrats have built up over the last two election cycles has been erased. I think Bill Foster is going to be a particularly big loser. - JustaJoe - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:27 pm: Democrats - Negative Republicans - Positive Feds push administration, and lots of costs, to the states. Illinois can’t afford to do what it’s supposed to now. Also, more nanny state stuff. Republicans can fire up base and attract the middle particularly noting how this was don “The Chicago Way” - jim - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:27 pm: this will not be a net positive for Dems. It will be a great positive for Dems. They will win a crushing victory over the cruel, heartless, just-say-no Republicans in the fall elections. They’ll gain at least another 30 seats in the House and at least 10 more in Senate. People love a winner, no matter what the issue, and Obama has shown in this case that he truly is the One and that all the adulation that has come his way was not only justified but not really enough considering what he brings to the table in terms of his strenghts. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:27 pm: I think the votes of the respective US Rep’s will not make too much of a difference except for Foster and Halvorson, who more or less live in enemy territory and were the beneficiaries of a dispirited conservative base and the Obama tidal wave in 2008. With the makeup of their districts, their votes for HC bills could tip the election the other way. Bean I think is safe due to her challenger more than anything, but also that she has a few terms under her belt and has built a moderate base. As far as down-ticket effects, i don’t expect IL will be one of those 30- or 40- something states that are thinking of challenging the mandatory insurance requirements - that bill would never be let out of committee by MJM or JC. We might hear a little banter at the gubernatorial level, but that’s about it. - cassandra - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:37 pm: Ironically, it may be neutral, at least partly because Illinois already has cheap universal health care access for kids and for their uninsured parents as well– up to a moderate income level. I believe young adults can already stay on their parents’ policies until their late twenties in Illinois. This bill will help low to moderate income non-disabled adults who do not have kids and aren’t covered at work. They are currently at the mercy of the rapacious individual insurance market. But help is on the way in a few years, so this group may not be overwhelmingly grateful to the Dems until they actual see the changes. Grateful, but not too grateful. - siriusly - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:38 pm: The passage of the bill itself, regardless of what it does, is a net positive for Democrats. He got something done. That’s a major change for Washington, I think it flows with the Obama message. That said, it will still be a Republican trending year, but I think that the fact that the President accomplished something major that he set out to do - will add something to the Democrats messaging that has been missing from any incumbent party for many years. It will help motivate the Dem & Dem leaning voters slightly more, I think. Overall, maybe the momentum shifts away from a huge GOP wave to a little GOP wave. IL Senate and House stay in Dem hands. Maybe Pelosi loses the US House, but Durbin keeps the Senate for sure. - Rob N - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:38 pm: Clearly, if you’re conservative you’ll think this is a net positive for Repubs and if you’re progressive you’ll think it’s positive for Dems. Polling indicates it will be at least a short term positive for Dems as perturbed progressive activists come back home. Longer term the economy will overshadow absolutely everything else, though there may be some additional benefit to Dems as the non-existent government takeovers, death panels, Armageddons, Waterloos, and goon squads never become reality no matter how much pixie dust rabid teabaggers spew. And, as others have mentioned, running on a platform to repeal college kids’ insurance and Medicare’s solvency is just plain asinine. PS - Mark Kirk and the GOP last night voted to support the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase they’d all spent so much hot air railing against these past few weeks. - Change is on the way - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:42 pm: Positive for everyone but lipinski what a loser!!! - grand old partisan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:44 pm: It will be a net neg for Bean, Foster and Halvorson. Brady/Quinn is going to be about totally different issues. Alexi/Kirk is not going to be about issues at all. Dem lawmakers have created a real problem for themselves. They are right that, taken on their own, many parts of the bill are popular, but the tax increases and Medicare cuts that are supposed to pay for it are not. What’s more likely to drive people to the polls, satisfaction with a yet-to-be-fully-implemented government program, or anger over taxes and Medicare cuts?? The final x-factor might not be known until the final month of the campaign. When people get their open enrollment notices in October and find out if/how much their premiums are going up for the next year, that could be the ballgame in 8, 11 & 14. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:44 pm: Dems: Positive for the base, to whom they were starting to look pretty ineffective. Why go out and campaign for a group of ineffective losers who cannot agree on and pass this key piece of legislation? The lack of progress couple with all the infighting had the potential to hurt the Dems this summer and fall when they were trying to recruit volunteers. BUT, it may hurt them with swing voters depending on how the issues ends up playing over the next few months. Overall, a slight positive to neutral for the Dems. Repubs: They couldn’t stop it, which makes them look ineffective. They did not offer any clear alternative, which makes it look like thy were being overly partisan. It helps them with the tea party types and perhaps with a bit broader base, but I don’t see this as a big plus with the swing voters. Overall, slightly negative to slightly positive depending on how this plays over the summer. If either side can get the MSM to latch onto a preferred narrative, it could benefit them in the fall. It will be “cold-hearted Republicans don’t want you to have affordable health care” vs “Democrats want to take your money.” Insurance Company stocks were headed up today, so the Dem’s narrative takes the lead for now. - ABCBoy - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:45 pm: === if they continue to simply say no without having anything to offer as a “better” alternative, then they stand to lose in november or not gain as nearly as much as they should or could. === At no point were the Republicans “simply saying no.” They’ve been offering concrete alternative solutions for almost a year, but the Obama Administration shut them out of the process. In the fall elections, expect the GOP to be highlighting the problems with the current bill and their alternative ideas. As for a net positive or negative for Dems vs. the GOP: The opposition to this bill on the GOP side is very intense. However, the bill was very cleverly crafted in a way that it will help the Democratic party in terms of election timing. Some of the benefits hit immediately (kids up to 26 being covered by parents, pre-existing conditions, etc), so people will see those before November. The taxes won’t hit until April 2011, and it may take a few extra months for the insurance companies to respond by jacking up their rates in response to the new mandates. Thus, some benefit might be felt without the pain in November 2010. The rest of the program doesn’t kick in fully until December 31, 2013, so if this ends up harming the health care industry, folks won’t figure it out until well after the 2012 election. Short-term, the net effect of all this will be a smaller but very intense GOP support trnslating to dollars & volunteer hours versus a larger but diffuse positive voter effect if voters notice some of the benefits of the bill before November. Then over another 5 years, since the markets will have been further distorted, lines will grow longer, insurance rates will skyrocket, and there will be calls to double-down on the nationalization of health care. Original opponents will be saying “see, we told you so,” while proponents won’t admit defeat and claim that what’s needed to fix it is even more state control. - Responsa - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:47 pm: There is at least one feature of the new HC bill that is going to be universally unpopular the more it is known. In the current races I fully expect the Republicans to exploit that thing mightily (and successfully) as “code” as they play into voters’ mistrust of government and government excesses. That *thing* is the 16,000 new IRS agents who will be funded to enforce the insurance purchase mandates, verify income eligibility, and generally snoop into people’s individual and businesses tax filings and lives. I have yet to meet a Democrat, a Republican or a Libertarian who trusts the IRS, loves IRS agents, and eagerly wants more of them on the payroll. That feature is going to be rather bi-partisanly hated and very useful to the Republicans’ narrative and advertising. It will be very damaging to Dems. How can they begin to defend it? I guess as of now, even in Illinois, I predict a slight net negative for Dems over all–both because of the bill itself and the public perceptions of the way it was rammed through (troubling even among those who otherwise support the bill). Melissa Bean would be one of the more vulnerable in that regard, I believe, if her Republican challenger had not already messed up so badly. I was wondering as I watched C-span last night if Pelosi would have given Bean a pass to vote “no” if she had a stronger challenger back home to contend with. I think Foster will be another House race to keep an eye on and to try to read the Health Care bill tea leaves on over the next couple months. - Rayne of terror - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:52 pm: Holy smokes are the Bloomington Normal folks on Twitter mad at Halvorson today. Men in particular are fired up against her, but I doubt their belly fire lasts until November. - Will County Woman - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:55 pm: Re: Lipinksi Finally an illinois dem who stands on principle! in my book that’s a net positive. halvorson was skating on thin ice before this vote, and i think she will lose in november. - Cook County Commoner - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:55 pm: The healthcare law will be a net positive for Illinois Democrats and a net loss for Republicans. For Democrats, it will provide a safety valve when they walk away from state and local government employee retirement healthcare insurance promises, as they must at some point for fiscal reasons. The plan may ( should) perpetuate the symbiosis between government employee unions and the Democrats, which provide campaign contributions, campaign workers and below the radar benefits. It’s a net loss for Republicans because they overplayed their hand in opposition. And they continue to do so with threats of repeal and state sponsored litigation against the federal government claiming unconstitutionality of the new law. The population is aging, and paying for healthcare is one of the main anxiety triggers for those between 55 and medicare age of 65, especially those who may otherwise have the funds to retire. I think they have been a silent majority during this legislative ordeal, who may repay the Republicans for what appears to be a total disengagement, or at least the media perception of same, from the process for party reasons. Conversely, this demographic will line up with Democrats, and many will be conservatives. Nothing like a diagnosis of diabetes or cancer concerning you or a loved one, or the thought of such a horror, to test your politics. They’ll take whatever relief is served up and cling to it because they know nothing better is on the way. - ABCBoy - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:56 pm: *And I agree that this will most negatively effect Foster and Halverson. Their respective GOP opponents Hultgren and Kinzinger are relatively strong, whereas Bean’s opponent Walsh is relatively weak. However, one way the Dems to survive this is to trot out a very cute toddler with a pre-existing condition, paint horns on the GOP opponent, and say that he wants to take away little Suzie’s health care, how dare he, etc. The short-term emotional impact is devistating. Even if the GOP opponent is articulate and can paint the long-term fiscal problems with this program, it may fall on deaf ears if people are wrapped up in the immediate concrete example of the pre-existing condition issue. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:56 pm: ===Bloomington Normal folks on Twitter === Let’s move along and get to the question, please. Tweeter opinion in B-N isn’t really all that germane. - Stones - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:57 pm: It seems to me that the Dems took their lumps throughout the process. Actually passing the legislation definitely works in their favor at this point. The key now is informing the public about what is actually changing with regard to health care. The Democrats have allowed the Republicans to define the issue up to this point. If this is to be a positive for them in the long run they need to do a better job of selling the package. I’ll call it net a gain for the Democrats. - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:58 pm: Major negative - here is why… Let’s even go so far as to ignor what this legislation is about and focus on how it was handled instead. American voters are sick of broken government, and how Congress handled this bill demonstrates how badly government is broken. It was handled without a shred of bipartisanship. The Congressional majorities even rolled over questions that arose within their own party. Regardless of the intention of this legislation, you could not have pass it through Congress in a way that damages it more than how this legislation was passed. Do voters care? Yes they do. In 2006, they voted for change. In 2008, they voted for change. In 2010, they will again vote for change. The Congressional scandals have worsened. The budget crisis worsened. The backroom dealmaking voters dislike has worsened. The partisanship backstabbing voters voted Obama into office to end - has worsened. In considering every measurement deemed important to voters over the past four years, we have seen massive partisan failures in meeting their wishes. The Democrats have committed political suicide for a generation of voters. They have exposed themselves as a group that doesn’t believe in democracy when it goes against their political agenda. They have exposed themselves as a group willing to give the finger to questioning voters. They have exposed themselves as the status quo the American people voted out of office twice in the past few years. The GOP wins because they lost. The Democrats lose because they won in the worse way possible. - erstwhilesteve - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:08 pm: If the question is whether, after a year+ of legislative sausage-making, the Democrats are better off winning than losing, I think it’s safe to say that winning is better. If the question is whether they should have gotten into this at all, this is a hard counterfactual to evaluate, because so much that has happened in the interim is directly or indirectly tied to the venture. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:09 pm: Based on what I have seen in Illinois, Bean and Foster are toast. Halvorson, Costello and Hare will need to pull out all the stops to be reelected. I would guess a Republican pickup of 4 seats in November in Illinois. In the time approaching the election those of us who are insured will experience larger increases in insurance and medical costs than before and the darkness of the special deals will start to become apparent. Those who are not insured will learn that there is no free lunch and will be disappointed that the ‘reform’ did not meet their expectation. I also expect the same reaction from the currently uninsured in Illinois as those in Massachusetts express today. The new coverage is going to be more expensive than expected and more limited in scope. The punitive nature of the mandatory coverage will start to become apparent as well. The outrage from the conservatives will be matched by disappointment from the left leaving those who voted for the bill vulnerable. - Niles Township - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:10 pm: It is a positive for the GOP because it may energize some more conservative elements in the party to vote for Kirk rather than leave the post blank. - OneMan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:12 pm: A loss for Foster (might cost him the seat, will help him raise some outside Dem money however). the special parts of the bill will be used against Foster A bit of a loss for Lipinski but not enough to make a difference. - Will - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:16 pm: It’s a gain for Democrats. The Republican base was already angry and ready to vote in November no matter what happened. The biggest danger for Democrats is their base becoming demotivated and staying home in a repeat of ‘94. The same is true of climate change legislation. It will anger Republicans but Democrats need to give people are reason to show up and vote for them instead of just running away from controversy. - 4 Percent - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:22 pm: Halvorson and Foster will be gone. The bigger issue for Dems could be the growing fury among the populace and chance that it will fan the flames resulting in a Brady election and smaller margins in the General Assembly. IF (and its a big IF), this happens, imagine that the GOP blocks the Dem map and wins the drawing out of the hat. - Will - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:25 pm: Republicans claiming that Democrats will be harmed by how the bill was handled are amusing. About 1/3 of Illinois voters will buy the talk radio spin that Democrats were unreasonable. The rest of the nation saw Obama reaching out for compromise again and again while Republicans acted like children throwing a temper tantrum. Yes, we know about John Shimkus shouting “Just say no!” at the State Fair rally last year. Republicans embarrassed themselves and voters noticed. Polls show that even people who weren’t sold on Obama’s plan dislike like how the GOP handled the issue even more. Most people will laugh at the talk radio hysteria when the sky doesn’t fall before November. Kirk just guaranteed he’ll lose in November by voting against health care. - ZC - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:28 pm: Agreed it looks like a bit of a net gain for Dems. That will be impossible to verify, however, since 2010 will be bad for the Democrats already, unless the economy sharply improves. But it was already bad for the Dems. This victory no question will motivate the base a bit and spur them to go out and vote, since they now know that major pro-liberal-direction change is possible. And the base turnout will probably determine what is likely to be a godawful voter performance in November. Bean is toast? Against that awesome force that is Joe Walsh?? If Joe Walsh can be pulled from the race and replaced, maybe, otherwise she will win reelection. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:36 pm: Net positive for Dems, because they’re nearly finished talking about it. The GOP and tea folks had a lot of steam built up over the summer. It is easier to manufacture dissent when the goal is to stop something. That step is behind us. Calling for repeal now forces GOPers to call for the repeal of the benefits of an actual bill, not for the detriments of a hypothetical one. The idea that the Democrats have lost a generation of voters is beyond ludicrous. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:38 pm: It will be a net negative for the Democrats and a net positive for Republicans but not by the large margins the GOP may hope. The Democrat power of Cook County and the Metro-East and the ineptitude of the Illinois GOP will keep things nearer the status quo than they should be. - Boone Logan Square - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:41 pm: Not sure that it’ll matter for anyone other than Kirk. Brady will win or lose his seat on other issues (Quinn, dogs, economy); the House candidates will win or lose based on the economy more than anything else. Kirk has gone on record opposing it in a statewide race, and if Giannoulias wants to make hay to get young people voting in the midterm, he’ll stoke fears of Kirk trying to roll back their new coverage through age 27. That may be worth 1-2 percentage points in the fall. Of course, the GOP may by then be ginning up fear of brown people as immigration reform is debated. It’d be a perfect environment for Oberweis. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:43 pm: I said it in a post last week and I’ll say it again. Passing HCR is a slam-dunk for Democrats, especially this year. No pre-existing conditions for kids, no tax increases for regular joes, a victory over insurance companies (EVERYONE not on a company plan has a story), tax breaks for small businesses…. I don’t know about Halvorson, but the same people screaming “SOCIALIST!!!” at Foster now didn’t vote for him last time. Indies are going to realize that the socialist IRS Nazi death-panel boogie man won’t come to get them in November, and he’ll keep his job. - Montrose - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:45 pm: It will all depend on what fire pops up in the fall. There is a good chance this bill will be a distant memory. People have a hard time getting fired up by something that is not directly in front of them. I would love to see these answers pulled out in October to see how folks’ opinion the day after the vote compares to seven months from now. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:49 pm: The Dems desperately needed to get their base back in line. The voter motivation polling has been particularly horrible for Democrats the past several months. This bill obviously helps motivate the base, so it improves their standing over where they were a month ago. In this narrow respect it’s a net positive. The opposition anger is pretty darned high as it is. Not sure it’ll get all that much higher. However, there are serious pitfalls ahead. If, for instance, the insurance companies use the almost-immediate reforms in the new law as an excuse to drastically raise rates (not sure if they can, but we’ll see), then it’s a big problem for Dems and a net loss come November. The big impact will be 2012, when Obama is running again. If the program is a success, he’s easily reelected (see Alf Landon campaigning to repeal Social Security in 1936). If it is horribly buggy and doesn’t nearly perform as promised, he’s in real trouble (think Iraq’s impact on the Repubs). The problem I’ve sensed all along is that the Democrats seemed more interested in passing a bill than passing one which worked well for average people. To me, the final product looks a bit too much like a Rube Goldberg contraption. If it works, they finish ahead of where they were heading. If it doesn’t work, they lose big. People like new things that work and don’t cost them a lot. They don’t like expensive flops. - phocion - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:51 pm: It’s a tough year to be Republican, based on historical trends. But this win makes Obama look decisive. The Republicans haven’t gotten out their alternative message about fixing the system; let’s face it, they had 8 years to do so and fumbled. And the tax increases won’t bite until well past election day. Plus, if one more insurance company announces a huge spike in premiums before election day, it’ll really bite the Republicans. Not getting this bill enacted would have been much worse for the Democrats. So a net plus for Democrats, even though several will go down in November. - phocion - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:56 pm: I meant tough year to be a Democrat. And not sure I agree with Rich about how insurance companies increasing premiums will hurt Dems, unless he means they use something in the bill to do so. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:59 pm: ===unless he means they use something in the bill to do so. === I do. The ban on things like annual/lifetime caps, the no recissions language and the preexisting conditions stuff will cost money. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:06 pm: …Adding… So, if the insurance companies announce that they have no choice but to drastically jack up rates because of this bill, then there’s gonna be heck to pay out there. Again, I’m not totally sure they can. But companies can get around all sorts of restrictions. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:13 pm: Very good point about premium increases. I actually mentioned it to my staff this morning. However, $4 billion quarterly profits are an easy rebuttal to the idea that almost-instantaneous rate increases are the Dems’ fault, especially since some companies are trying pre-emptive increases and are catching heck. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:18 pm: ===I do. The ban on things like annual/lifetime caps, the no recissions language and the preexisting conditions stuff will cost money.=== They do cost money. That concept seems to have been lost in the hoopla surrounding the debate. They cost serious money, and the insurance companies will need to recoup a major portion of that cost. That will likely hurt Democrats in the short run. - Pickles!! - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:26 pm: Don’t think it will be a big issue by the election. I think unemployemnt and the economy will judge how the votes fall, both nationally and statewide. This healthcare plan won’t matter to voters. Right now, there appears to bea very anti-incumbant wave spreading. - Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:31 pm: …Adding a bit more… Americans love a winner, and Obama/Dems won this round. So, another small net plus for Dems there. - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:39 pm: Bean, Halvorson and Foster are sitting in purple districts that were comfortable with changing parties in 2006 and 2008. With their votes this week, these Democrats have repositioned themselves as partisans representing bipartisan districts. Independants especially will not support re-electing these Democrats since the vast majority of them do not favor Obamacare. Couple that with the fact that their districts have strong minority GOP voters, they will be at a loss this November. - Porter McNeil - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:40 pm: Rich, I think anytime you can expand coverage to 32 million Americans, provide tax cuts to small business, cut the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 20 years and end the abusive insurance industry practice of denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, you’ve moved good public policy forward. Good policy is usually good politics. It’s incumbent on the White House and the Dems to sell what’s good about this bill because they’re up against a strong talk radio/cable TV buzzsaw. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:45 pm: Rich - I expect the Tea Party opposition to health care reform to wane significantly by November. 1) There’s just no more policy fuel to keep the fire burning as hot as it has been. 2) Without insurance industry p.r. money, there’s no way to sustain the Tea Party opposition long-term. 3) Banking Reform is up next, which puts the GOP in the position of defending Wall Street. I can’t wait to hear how Dick Armey’s Tea Party justifies their support for big Wall Street bonuses. But, you can bet that if there’s money to be made for his consulting business, he’ll do it. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:56 pm: “the vast majority of them do not favor Obamacare.” I’m interested in seeing that polling. Can you post the link? - Responsa - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:56 pm: During today’s QOTD I noticed that several who think the new legislation will be a net gain for Dems have based that belief on the idea that even with the bill’s flaws and pitfalls the GOP would not *dare* run on a platform of “elect us to repeal the bill”. I agree completely. The GOP will not do that. That would play right into the Dem’s ongoing and frankly tiresome mantra that the Republicans had no plan (which of course was never true) and that they are just obstructionists. Instead, I think you will see Republicans across the country running on a specific and carefully crafted platform of “repeal and replace.” In other words, they will campaign wit a blueprint to repeal the just passed high-tax, intrusive, big government style route to achieving a particular desired benefit of the legislation, AND show how they will immediately replace it with a specific free-market, patient and doctor centric approach that will achieve the same basic result or benefit. Yes. It can be done in most cases. The more I hear about this plan the more I am convinced it will work well for Republican candidates running this fall. Especially for the many Americans who are suspicious that the comprehensive health insurance bill which passed yesterday (and bizarrely included a student loan takeover)is more about expanding the size and role of government than about improving America’s health care–yet understand that we absolutely must have health reform,–the repeal and replace strategy should be be quite attractive and effective. - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:58 pm: The opposition anger is pretty darned high as it is. Not sure it’ll get all that much higher. Wait. It will get worse for the Congresspeople unable to sell it to voters in their districts. From the moment the first Congressman cracks and flails on camera, it will snowball. There are too many frightened Congresspeople going home for none of them to snap, break down, or get angry. They are running on emotions. The first time one of them snaps on camera, it will make news. Then we will be seeing that although they held together during the final vote, each Congressperson who voted for this will find excuses which will be unpersuasive and run away from one another. It is going to get worse. - I wonder... - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:01 pm: The republicans put all of their eggs in one basket and with passage the eggs are broke. Once the PR kicks in and seniors understand the hole in the doughnut is gone, more people are covered under insurance, small business owners get tax credits, the votes to repeal will be impossible and the President played hard ball and hit a home run. Mid-terms might see a slight increase in republican seats, as is usually the case in the party out of power, but they do not offer solutions. Without health care, what is their alternative to constantly say no. Their districts are hurting for jobs, etc. Insurance by November will not be a hot topic. IMHO - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:08 pm: I expect the Tea Party opposition to health care reform to wane significantly by November. You aren’t getting it. The Tea Parties weren’t just about health care. They are about debt. With the passage of Obamacare, the coming loss of our Moody AAA bond rating and the continuance of our economic problems, they found a niche of citizen anger that is growing, not lessening. They are opposed to big government, regardless of the issue. This isn’t going away. - bored now - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:09 pm: the health care reform law will be a tremendous advantage for democrats in november. here’s why: the conservative base is already intensely excited about the 2010 elections, and democrats haven’t had anything really to get excited about. winning this vote and signing this into law changes that. it helps that republicans are willing to run on a “repeal it” message, because democrats will know that sitting on the sidelines means that republicans will turn back the clock on one of democrats’ signature issues. strangely, i asked one of my lefty friends what she thought about the vote last night (she had been standing with howard dean and disappointed with the president’s leadership) and she admitted that she had changed her mind. we’re now no longer arguing over what should be in the bill but united in keeping health care a right and not the privilege that republicans seem to think it should be. finally, it’s an advantage because so few voters actually understood what was in the bill, but that will change as these new laws against recession, health care limits and denial for pre-existing conditions get publicized. one email from nfib started: “it’s not as bad as we feared.” republicans were already going to come out to vote; democrats finally gave their supporters reason to get energized this fall… - ABCBoy - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:23 pm: === The rest of the nation saw Obama reaching out for compromise again and again while Republicans acted like children throwing a temper tantrum. === This is patently untrue. The last time the Obama Administration met with the Republicans about health care was on April 23, 2009. At that meeting he made it clear he’d likely go w/ the reconciliation and jam the thing through anyway. Once that became clear around May/June, then you saw the protests. The White House shut the GOP out of the process from April 2009 until the “Healthcare Summit” photo-op a few short weeks ago. === Most people will laugh at the talk radio hysteria when the sky doesn’t fall before November. === The legislation has such a long roll-out period, it’s unlikely the full impact will be felt right away no matter what–most likely not until a decade or two. === The big impact will be 2012, when Obama is running again. If the program is a success, he’s easily reelected (see Alf Landon campaigning to repeal Social Security in 1936). If it is horribly buggy and doesn’t nearly perform as promised, he’s in real trouble (think Iraq’s impact on the Repubs). === Actually, much of the bill doesn’t activate until December 31, 2013–well after the 2012 election. He’ll make an effort to claim victory before any 2nd shoe might drop. By that time, if it fails, it will allow supporters to claim that it wasn’t the legislation’s fault but some interceding event that caused the problems instead. The solution they’ll propose: just pour more resources into the plan or kick the fiscal mess down the road. Just like Medicare & Medicaid. They’ll also be counting on the fact that by that then, people will come to feel entitled to the new goodies in the bill. That way, even if it’s clear it’s a problem and unsustainable, people will cry bloody murder if people try to roll back their “rights” to get the thing under fiscal control. === …However, $4 billion quarterly profits are an easy rebuttal to the idea that almost-instantaneous rate increases are the Dems’ fault… === Although that is a lot of money in terms of real-dollars, the average profit margin for health insurance companies is about 4%. Unless you’re going to advocate price controls via government, they’re going to recoup their overhead somewhere. That’s one of the things that frustrates me with these heavy regulatory regimes–they assume that people & companies won’t just change their behavior to compensate. When they inevitably do, folks just call for another round of regulations to “fix” that additional market distortion. Wash, rinse, repeat until you get rationalizations for complete state control. - Capitol View - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:28 pm: Dick Armey is the Mad Hatter of the Teas Party movement - a totally steered pseudo-grass roots effort. See his web site for proof. I stayed up late last night to see the Congressional votes cast — and to see the Fox (Faux) News responses. They were mostly of disbelief, since they did not imagine that the Democrats could exercise the party discipline of the anti-government Congressional Republicans. Fox News also reported that they expected court challenges to the new law based on its exceeding the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, with regards to federal jurisdiction. Fox concluded by saying that the Democrats had spent all their political capital on this one bill, and there would be nothing left that the Obama Administration coud accomplish prior to the next election. But my newspapers report that the immigration reform proposal, the Wall Street tightening of regulations (not much, I grant you)and other measures will be coming up in the coming months. There will be a record of accomplishment by the Democrats in Washington, for them to run on. And teh Republicans will have a record of being naysayers, even when their issues are included in Democratic proposals that pass. The party of the president always does poorly in mid year elections. But I see Illinois and most national Democratic candidates doing better than many of my fellow bloggers predict. - SoIL M - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:39 pm: The only negative for IL Dems will be for Costello, Foster, Bean who acted like they were going to stand on their principals and vote no, but last night caved to the party leaders and voted yes, against the wishes and best interest of the people they represent. Statewide Dems will suffer enough from their own mismanagement, corruption, and failures. Healthcare Bill wont hurt them any more than what they have done while in control of our own House, Senate and Gov office. - downstate hack - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:44 pm: Generally initially very negative for congress especially the Dems. People are dismayed with the seemingly backroom hidden negotiations and don’t understand the Bill or the process. Certainly not the transperancy Obama promised during the campaign. Whether or not the Reb can capitalize on it remains a ?? as they also appear negatively as just nay sayers. - Robert - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:44 pm: net positive for republicans, as it will help the anti-incumbency mood. big exception: net negative for kirk, since the election may now be obama referendum instead of alexi v kirk - RobRoy - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:45 pm: Bad for the D’s, good for the R’s. Last night was a Pyrrhic victory. D’s will lose 2 maybe 3 US House seats and a Senate seat here in the land of blue. Too many folks do not want higher costs or taxes no matter what’s been promised and that message is all they will hear from here to election day. - Responsa - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:53 pm: Interesting. CNN released a poll at noon today which nationally has 39% in favor of the HC bill. 59% against it and 2% no opinion. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:54 pm: Absolutely the insurance companies will need to compensate. They also have 30 million new customers. As a dyed-in-the-wool single payer advocate with his feet firmly on the ground, the more I look at the calculations that were made to pass this thing the more I give the Dems their due. There is very little to actually complain about before November, there is a ton of feel-good stuff in there to run on, and they are on the right side of the debate right now because only liars and the ignorant say the current system works. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 4:58 pm: CNN’s poll was from before the vote and combines those who think the bill is too liberal with those who think it didn’t go far enough. Personally I would have been in the second group and now am in favor of it so game really changed last night. - Jake - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 5:02 pm: Big positive for dems. Let me reframe the question. Whom would you bet on in a campaign between Barack Obama and the republican party. That’s what this will come down to - Rob N - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 5:26 pm: ABC says, “This is patently untrue. The last time the Obama Administration met with the Republicans about health care was on April 23, 2009. At that meeting he made it clear he’d likely go w/ the reconciliation and jam the thing through anyway. Once that became clear around May/June, then you saw the protests. The White House shut the GOP out of the process from April 2009 until the “Healthcare Summit” photo-op a few short weeks ago.” Actually … that is patently untrue. The “R” in COBRA stands for Reconciliation. The process itself involves neither jamming nor throats despite the Repubs’ constant whining. As for the last meeting between the President and Republicans on health care … it happened a few weeks ago, not 11 months ago. Or were you in a cave during the whole day-long, nationally televised, completely open and transparent health care summit the White House hosted? Sheesh. Conservatives really need to stop lying. It wore thin a long time ago and nobody votes for whiney liars. – As for all the screwy “Higher taxes! Higher premiums! Higher booga booga!” nonsense … maybe the PRIVATE insurance companies’ CEOs need to rethink the multi-million dollar bonuses they’re awarding themselves. We Americans didn’t like it when the banks’ execs did that either. The Dems need to (and it appears they already are starting to) frame the question of higher premiums in terms of greed vs doing the right thing. Megabucks bonuses to the insurers’ C-suite are a matter of greed, not rescission rates, automatic triggers or pre-existing conditions. The money to cover the sick and hurt is in the system, it’s just been going to big-time profits and golden parachutes instead of to the people who thought they were paying for a quality service. The more I see these lame con talking points repeated the more I think last night was a positive for the Dems and a negative for the Republicans. The GOP can only lie so much before swing voters ask why they’re skunking up the room. - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 6:57 pm: It was going to be a bad year for Democrats anyway, now it will be less bad. Especially in Illinois, since Obama remains very popular. As others have noted, Foster and Halvorsen gave their opponents an opening, but their opponents were going to savage them with health care regardless, so at least they have a victory to point to. I think it takes a lot of wind out of the sails of the tea party people. Lipinski is hurt the most, in my opinion, of any Illinois Dem. What a maroon. Half the reason his father got him the job was so he could get lifetime congressional healthcare for himself, and now he votes no for the rest of his district? Ouch, that’s going to leave a mark. Finally, and because I couldn’t take it anymore, Vanillaman opens his QOTD comment with: ===Let’s even go so far as to ignor what this legislation is about and focus on how it was handled instead.=== You’ve been doing that for weeks now, ignoring what was in the legislation while crying a river about how awful it was, how unfair and unAmerican it was, that majorities in both houses of Congress are required to pass legislation. Get over it. You lost. This legislation is far more conservative than a lot of us would have liked to see, so count your blessings. In the future, please do refer to this as Obamacare. And remember to thank a Democrat for making it happen. PS: You’re welcome. - ZC - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 9:13 pm: To put a different spin on this, even a bad fallout for the new law could be good for Illinois Democrats. A bad reaction to Obama’s new medicine could mean a lot of Senators lose their seat, including the current majority leader Harry Reid. Assuming the Dems don’t go all the way to losing control of the Senate, then there’s a good chance that Dick Durbin will be running the Senate come January ‘11. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.