President Obama Endorses Earlier State Opt-Out of PPACA

The ongoing debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is about more than whether this provision or that provision is beneficial or damaging to the nation’s economy and health care system. The debate is also about the appropriate role of the federal government compared to that of state governments and individuals. Health insurance, and consequently much of health care, has long been the purview of the states. The PPACA changes that balance considerably.

Enter Senators Ron Wyden and Scott Brown – the former a Democrat the latter a Republican. They are co-sponsoring a bill allowing states to opt-out of many of the more controversial provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care plan as early as 2014 if they meet certain eligibility requirements. (The health care reform law already provides for this opt-out in 2017, but by then states will have invested heavily in implementing the PPACA).

This legislation, one of the few bi-partisan health care reform-related measures put forward in the past few years, just received a politically important boost. Speaking before the National Governor’s Association meeting in Washington, DC today, President Obama endorsed the Wyden-Brown proposal. Were the bill to pass, states could replace the individual and employer mandate, health insurance exchanges and whatever the federal government comes up with as “essential benefits” all health insurance policies must cover. Yet the states would still receive the insurance subsidies and administrative funding they’d be eligible for under the PPACA.

Gaining this privilege to go their own way, however, is no easy task. As described by Kate Pickert in Time’s the Swampland blog, states would need to show their own health care reform approach would:

  • not increase the federal deficit
  • provide insurance to as many people as would the PPACA
  • provide insurance as least as comprehensive as that called for in the PPACA
  • provide insurance that’s just as affordable

Avik Roy at Forbes’ The Apothecary blog has an excellent presentation of the pros-and-cons of the Wyden-Brown legislation. For example, he sites Ben Domenech as observing that “states would have to prove a greater number of people will purchase a product under their alternate plan than would do so under a law requiring them to purchase that product!” However, this may be easier than Mr. Domenech apparently believes. As I’ve pointed out previously, there are other ways to encourage consumers to obtain coverage than a government imposed mandate. The Waiver for State Innovation, as the Wyden-Brown proposal is referred to, doesn’t allow states to return to the status quo. On the contrary, states would still need to put forward comprehensive health care reform. They can just go about it in a different way than that taken by the Obama Administration in the PPACA.

As President Obama said to the Governors when describing the value of moving the state opt-out opportunity to 2014, “It will give you flexibility more quickly while still guaranteeing the American people reform.”

For example, states could set up a system in which consumers are given health insurance vouchers to purchase coverage. Carriers could be required to issue policies to all who apply. To protect their pools from the adverse selection of people waiting until they’re on their way to the hospital to obtain insurance, carriers could be permitted to exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions for as long as a consumer has been without coverage. This kind of approach would do away with exchanges and the PPACA’s approach to the individual mandate. Of course, so would the single-payer approach being considered in Vermont.

A wise man once told me, “You never solve problems, you just replace old problems with new ones.” President Obama is giving states the opportunity to solve – and create – their own problems. Whether any will be able, or willing, to seize this opportunity remains to be seen.

Two Unrelated Health Care Reform Items

Two items of interest concerning health care reform: one concerning repeal of an unpopular provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; the other a bi-partisan effort to allow states to opt-out of some of the health care reform law’s provisions.

1099s:

First, a quick update on the inevitable repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s requirement that businesses issue a 1099 when they pay any vendor or contractor more than $600 for goods or services. The update: it’s still inevitable.

Virtually everyone agrees this part of the new health care reform bill needs to be repealed or, at the very least, greatly revised. President Barack Obama wants to lift this burdensome paperwork. 61 Senators have voted to repeal it. A majority of the House wants to repeal it. The Senate tried twice to repeal the PPACA’s 1099 provision in late-November. But the provision has yet to be repealed.

Just this week Democrats tried to repeal this tax reporting requirement by attaching it to the legislation the Senate is considering to extend the tax cuts about to to expire. Politico reports Republicans squashed the move because the deal ““wasn’t part of the original [compromise] framework, and nobody involved in the negotiations allowed any add-ons.” Apparently exceptions to the “no add-ons” rule are not allowed even by nearly unanimous consent.

There’s plenty of time to repeal the 1099 requirement as it doesn’t take effect until 2012. It’s inevitable repeal remains inevitable. That it’s taking this long says more about Congress than the policy underlying the 1099 provision. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. Eventually Congress will get the job done, even against its natural tendency not to.

Waivers:

Senator Ron Wyden is clever. He inserted a little noticed or discussed provision into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that has the potential to, as The Hill’s Healthwatch blog put it “take the partisan venom out of the healthcare reform debate.

As reported by Healthwatch, Senator Wyden’s amendment allows states to seek waivers from various parts of the law, including, for example, the requirement that everyone obtain health care coverage.

Currently, this state waiver provision doesn’t take effect until 2017. However, Senator Wyden, a Democrat, has joined with Republican Senator Scott Brown to seek these waivers in 2014 which is, not coincidentally, when some of the most controversial elements of the PPACA take effect (think exchanges, guarantee issue, and the individual mandate to name a few items).

State’s can’t just choose not play in the PPACA sandbox because, well, they simply don’t want to play (sorry Governor Perry).  States seeking a waiver need to demonstrate that their own health care reforms will accomplish the same results as are expected to come from the federal reforms in terms of the number of people covered, affordability and comprehensiveness. Some might call this a “put up or shut up” requirement; others consider it a deal killer. Regardless of the interpretation, as The Hill quotes Len Nichols, a George Mason University professor of health policy as observing, “It really is a clever way to force an adult conversation. It brings the conversation to the level where the state has to consider its options.” In any event, it at least creates the potential for states to go their own way in making health care coverage more affordable and available.

The legislation by Senators Wyden and Brown is the first bipartisan effort to revise the PPACA since the midterm elections. Given split control of Congress (Republicans in command of the House; Democrats with a majority in the Senate) bi-partisanship will be required to make any changes to health care reform.

This might seem to completely undermine the potential

Legislative Intent and Health Care Reform

The meaning and intent of legislation is often in the eye of the beholder. That’s why they invented courts. And the courts are where the interpretation of the medical loss ratio provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are likely to wind up. What will make such suits especially interesting is that the new health care reform bill wasn’t passed by Congress in the usual way. As a result, statements of legislative intent are lacking.

The usual route of legislation is through a Congressional conference committee in which differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill are ironed out – and where formal statements of intent are drafted, debated and published. The path of health care reform was different. The legislation was headed for a conference committee when, in Senator Scott Brown, a Republican, was elected from Massachusetts. This gave the GOP caucus, if they stayed united, the votes needed to block any bill from coming to the floor. And on the PPACA, Republicans were united in their opposition. Democratic leaders worked around this legislative roadblock by having the Senate pass the House legislation (HR 3590) and then both chambers passing a reconciliation bill (HR 4872). This allowed Democrats to pass health care reform with a majority vote instead of the super-majority which would have been required had the legislation gone the more traditional route.

But now the Department of Health and Human Services has to promulgate regulations that implement the medical loss ratio provisions of the new health care reform law. These are the provisions that require individual and small group carriers to spend 80 percent of the premium they take in on claims and health quality expenditures (large group policies have to spend 85 percent of premium on these costs). What goes into the calculation of this percentage will determine the impact of this part of the law.

American Health Line is reporting that Democratic lawmakers are providing advice to the Secretary of HHS that, according to health plans, is reinterpreting the letter of the law. (The story was originally published by Politico). The issue is ostensibly about how certain taxes will be treated in calculating a carriers medical loss ratio. What’s interesting, however, is the attempt by the Congressional Democrats to provide legislative intent after the fact and outside the normal process for doing so.

What this points out is that unintended consequences occur not just in the content of the law, but from how the law is passed.

Democrats Could Win With a Truly Bi-Partisan Health Care Reform Strategy

Hopefully the cottage industry in health care reform paranoia can calm down now. No one in Washington is talking about strategies to short circuit the election results in Massachusetts this week in which state Senator Scott Brown, soon to be the Republican’s “41st vote,” upset the Democratic candidate in a special election. While some dismayed Democrats did consider ways of passing legislation before Senator Brown is sworn into office, there was never really a chance that would happen.

One reason Senator Brown won was a reaction to the hubris Democrats in Congress displayed over the past 12 months concerning health care reform. Favors were dealt out to key lawmakers party favors at a kid’s birthday if that’s what it took to secure their votes. A temporary exemption from an excise tax on expensive health insurance policies was crafted for unions to get their support. Deals were brokered with large pharmaceutical companies and others to get them on-board. This is politics as usual, practiced by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Engaging in politics as usual, however, was the problem: voters in 2008 expressed their desire for change. Politics as usual is exactly what the public did not want.

Given this reality, Democrats passing a health care reform bill by jamming something through would be political malpractice of the highest order. Besides, there were never enough rank-and-file lawmakers in the caucus willing to go along with such silliness. So, not surprisingly, instead of passing health care reform by manipulating the rules, Democrats are now taking a breather, gathering their thoughts and developing a strategy for moving forward.

After some reflection, Democratic leaders will realize the scope of health care reform they can pass is extremely limited. Expensive, intrusive reforms are no longer an option. This doesn’t mean they can’t pass some version of reform. It just means that the reform they can pass will need to be less expensive, less comprehensive, and less intrusive than they had hoped.

What health care reform can be passed, and how long it will take, will depend in large part on which of two strategies the White House and Congressional Leaders choose to take.

President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can either pursue health care reform that gains the vote of the fewest number of Republican lawmakers necessary or legislation that can earns support from a meaningful percentage of Congressional Republicans. Following the former strategy would see them negotiate almost exclusively with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Seeking truly bi-partisan reform would require negotiating with a far larger group.

The bare minimum strategy will be tempting. It requires the least amount of compromise. As I wrote the other day, they could bare the current legislation down to its cost containment provisions, health insurance reforms, and some of the less expensive ideas to expand coverage to more Americans. Such a scaled-back bill might get the support of either Senator Snowe or Senator Collins – or both. (Who knows, even Senator Brown might be supportive. He does have to run for re-election in Massachusetts in 2012. He won the special election by positioning himself as an independent and downplaying his Republican affiliation. Showing his independence from hard-line Republicans is a reasonable political strategy for him.)

The problem with the bare minimum strategy is its what got Democrats into their current mess. By pursuing health care reform that never had a chance of gaining broad support, President Obama, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi assured a long, politically ugly legislative process – one that required the kind of deal making that voters, especially independent voters, had voted to change in 2008.

Instead, Democrats could take the advice of House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who observed, “Medicare wasn’t done in one fell swoop. You lay a foundation and you get this thing done over time.” If Democrats had taken this approach from the beginning health care reform might have been enacted already. Instead months were spent battling over issues like a government-run health plan that neither Republicans nor enough moderate Democrats could support. While hanging tough for a liberal wish list pleased their base (for awhile), it was inevitable moderate Democrats would determine the final health care reform package.

To gain sufficient Republican votes, Democrats will have to be willing to accept fairly limited reforms for now. They will need to include some meaningful malpractice reform. Democrats needs not include every and any provision Republican demand. Their goal is not to pass a bill by unanimous consent. Democrats just need to offer enough to peel off a significant number of Republicans – say 12 in the Senate and 35 or so in the House. Legislation with meaningful malpractice reform and a low sticker price could do that. Is this realistic? Well, there are a number of Republicans running in moderate seats, too. Running for re-election as a candidate who “opposed President Obama at every turn” is not a recipe for job security in such seats.

If Democrats succeed in passing bi-partisan reform they’ll have laid the foundation for future health care reform efforts. But what if Republicans unify behind a strategy of blocking reform of any kind, regardless of how moderate that reform might be? Such a strategy would just confirm that the GOP is the party of politics as usual. And in 2010 that’s not an image voters are likely to reward.

Massachusetts Offers Both Parties a Window of Opportunity for Health Care Reform

Not that anyone asked, but here’s some free advice to both Democrats and Republicans in Washington: don’t over think what’s happened in Massachusetts. There are as many interpretations of the “meaning,” “message” and “impact” of state Senator Scott Brown’s victory Tuesday night as there are television pundits. And just like paranoids noodling with a conspiracy theory, the facts can be manipulated to prove anything (I’ve heard all of these in the past 24 hours or so): President Barack Obama was too liberal; he tried too hard to be bi-partisan; he didn’t move fast enough on health care reform; he moved too fast on health care reform.

Or that the special election results prove that the Republican strategy of non-cooperation with Democrats is working; that the Republican establishment is out of step with Republican grass roots; that the country is irretrievably locked into blue/red gridlock; that the Republicans are branding themselves up as barriers to progress.

Or that Attorney General Martha Coakley defeat reflects voters feelings about the two candidates; what they think about President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and/or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; that Republicans are assured of victory in November; that Democrats have had a wakeup call and will rebound; or that the results reflect the skill (or lack thereof) of the candidates and their campaigns.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. One could argue that it means all those things and more. Usually, however, the simplest interpretation is usually closest to the truth: voters rejected Republicans last year because they were fed up with political games, hypocrisy and ineptitude. They are rejecting Democrats this year because they are fed up with political games, hypocrisy and ineptitude. The reality is that both parties have shown a remarkable inability to govern this complicated country let alone unify its diverse political viewpoints.

So instead of wasting time trying to squeeze every nuance out of the Boston-brewed tea leaves, my advice to both parties is to take advantage of the window of opportunity that election created between now and President Obama’s State of the Union Address to reinvent yourselves. Because let’s face it, voters don’t like either Democrats or Republicans. And why should they? Democrats lost sight of the reality that this is a centrist country. And Republicans have lost sight of the need to stand for something besides “we’re not those guys.”

Not surprisingly, given the topic of this blog, I think health care reform provides both parties with the chance to prove they deserve votes for something other than being the best of two evils.

Democrats have to stop acting like every member of their party thinks alike. Liberals seemed to think that with 60 votes in the Senate they’d quickly adopt the Progressive Caucus’ wish list. If they’d looked past their own hubris they’d have noticed that some of the folks in their caucus room were pretty darn moderate – heck, some are downright conservative. And they were elected as Democrats, too. Which means their views and votes are just as “Democratic” as those of liberals.

Given that the liberal agenda was never within reach and now is even more remote, think carefully about what you do next. Pass health care reform through some political legerdemain and you’ll only confirm to independent voters that you’re more interested in political games than acceptable public policy. (And remember, it’s independents that will determine the make-up of Congress. Consider: there are perhaps only 50-75 House seats winnable by either party – most Congressional seats are so solidly in one camp the seats are safe for the party who holds them now, assuming the incumbent avoids scandal or indictment).

Instead of passing health care reform in the next 24 hours, promise to take a step back and reconsider some of its elements. Then streamline the bill down to the essentials. What really matters when it comes to health care reform?

  • Restraining costs. There’s some interesting cost containment ideas buried in the current health care reform proposals. Paring the legislation down to its essentials will allow Democrats to make these ideas more prominent. Add some stronger malpractice reform language for good measure. Sure defensive medicine’s impact on costs is perceived as being far greater than it is, but let’s face it, Democrats have a perception problem. Pushing malpractice reform takes a talking point away from Republicans, shows independents that Democrats can stand up to trial lawyers, and can become a symbol for how serious Dems are to tackle runaway medical costs.
  • Unshackle Consumers with Pre-Existing Conditions. In America today, if you don’t get coverage through your employer and you have an existing medical condition, you’re out of luck. You may want to buy health insurance. You might be able to afford health insurance. But if you don’t already have coverage, you’re not going to get it. And if you do have coverage you’re stuck with it. Carriers can raise the rates, lower the benefits or both and you’ve got nowhere else to go. Most voters know someone in this predicament. Many voters are in it themselves. Require carriers to accept all applicants (what’s called “guarantee issue.”) But do so responsibly. Either require everyone to buy health insurance (called an “individual mandate”) or impose a meaningful penalty for failing to do so. Otherwise, costs will skyrocket as everyone waits until they need coverage before they purchase it – the equivalent of buying auto coverage from the tow truck driver hoisting your car after an accident (what’s called “adverse selection”). The problem is that Republicans have painted individual mandates as the devil’s work, forcing consumers to buy policies they may not want. So let the carriers provide the discipline: if a consumer fails to purchase coverage within a specified period of time after becoming eligible for it (for example by becoming too old to be covered as a dependent on their parent’s policy or losing employer-sponsored coverage) allow carriers to exclude pre-existing conditions for 12 months and to charge a 10 percent higher premium for two years. This makes those who choose to self-insure accountable for their decision while still allowing themselves a path back to responsibility.
  • Reduce the Number of Uninsured and Underinsured. Most Americans acknowledge there’s something wrong with America’s high number of uninsured. Whether the actual number is 47 million uninsured (greater than the population of California) or some lower number, the fact is it’s too many. Those with coverage pay a tax to support the uninsured, estimated at roughly $1,000 per year in higher insurance premiums. So expand Medicaid. Close the doughnut hole in Medicare prescription benefits. Offer subsidies to Americans who cannot afford premiums, but fail to qualify for government programs. Just don’t create new bureaucracies to do it. Voters know new agencies generally do more harm than good. Why feed the suspicion?
  • Reduce the Cost of Health Care Reform. If a reform package sets in motion medical cost containment, makes coverage portable, and reduces the number of uninsured – and that’s about it, the cost will be far less than what’s currently contemplated. Put on the table a tax on the wealthiest Americans (removing the tax cut President George Bush gave those earning more than $1 million per year. Then offer to replace the tax with revenue provisions Republicans offer. If they object to any revenue increases of any kind, then they will have fully embraced their branding as the do nothing party.  That’s a recipe for turning their current momentum into failure.

Which brings me to advice for Republicans. Waving a sheaf of paper at a presidential address on the floor of Congress is not proof of a Republican plan. Introduce a plan that the Republican caucus in both the Senate and the House can support. Submit it to the CBO for scoring. Treat it like a real bill. Demand hearings. Declare it a starting point for negotiations and then set up a time and place for a meeting to negotiate. If Democrats don’t show up Republicans will have enough political fodder to last two, maybe three, election cycles.

Sure, Rush Limbaugh won’t like it. He wants President Obama to fail and wants Republicans to fight every step he tries to take. But independent voters want America to succeed. They don’t care about who gets the credit, but they do care about appropriate progress. And they know achieving this means legislation that both President Obama and Republicans consider acceptable. So put together something that can gain votes beyond a Chamber of Commerce luncheon (see the above for some ideas). Remember, obstinacy is not a rallying cry. And if the GOP is not not careful, someone will remind voters that Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for six years, but never even considered meaningful health care reform. Voters don’t want the wrong health care reform, but that does not mean they don’t want any health care reform. The status quo is imposing hardship on more and more Americans. They need and deserve help. If Republicans want voters to return them to power in 10 months, they need to demonstrate leadership today.

As far as changes go, please get real. Allowing plans to sell across state lines undermines state’s rights. Republicans are for state’s rights, remember? Telling voters in California that policy makers in South Dakota will determine what’s adequate consumers protections when it comes to health insurance is lousy public policy. Republicans should go through their various proposals and cobble together a coherent package. And they should make it clear they want to pass some kind of health care reform. Proclaiming the status quo as adequate is unlikely to fly as a platform for very long.

The Massachusetts Senate race is the story of the week – and then some. Yes, it will have long term political ramifications, but eventually it will be yesterday’s news. Some other issue, scandal, disaster or discovery will take its place. For now, however, Senator-elect Brown’s upset gives both Democrats and Republicans a chance to prove they’re the party of the future, not the party of the left or of no or of, worst of all, the recent past. Whether either will choose to seize the opportunity is anyone’s guess. What’s yours?

Of course, what’s significant about the Massachusetts special election is not what I think it should mean, but what the actual impact it has on health care reform. Which I’ll be writing about as soon as the crystal ball clears a bit.

Massachusetts to Determine Health Care Reform? How Fitting.

After all the policy debates, lobbying, letter writing, political infighting, town hall meetings, cable news show histrionics (let alone nonsense), fear mongering, hyperbole, overpromising, committee hearings, academic musings, back room negotiations, blogging, twittering, spam emails, rallies, and even, on occasion, thoughtful and civilized discussion, the fate of health care reform all comes down to a special Senate election in Massachusetts. No scriptwriter could get away with this plot twist. The audience wouldn’t buy it.

But tomorrow, November 19th, voters in Massachusetts determine whether health care reform will pass. Pretty much. Yes, there are ways Democrats can overcome a win by the Republican candidate, state Senator Scott Brown. They might recruit a moderate Republican in the Senate to join them in passing their legislation. But as there are really only two moderate Republicans left in the Senate (both from Maine) that’s a long shot.

They could ram through legislation before the election results are certified, but that will hand Republicans a huge stick to wield in other 2010 elections. Democrats in the House could simply approve the health care reform bill passed in the Senate, but there’s plenty in the Senate bill to give House members up for election this year heart burn.

On the other hand, even if the Democratic candidate, Attorney General Martha Coakley, manages to win tomorrow, there’s no guarantee health care reform passes. But as I’ve written recently, with 60 Democrats in the Senate passage of a comprehensive health care reform bill is not inevitable, but it’s certainly likely.

So what happens in Massachusetts tomorrow matters. A lot.

Voter turnout will be the key to determining the outcome of the special election. Which is why both parties are pulling out all the stops to get their voters to the polls. One challenge for Democrats is that, although they outnumber Republicans in the state 3-to-1, the majority of voters (51 percent) are unaffiliated with either party. And they are supporting Senator Brown.

A single state having enormous influence on American politics and policies is not unusual. Iowa and New Hampshire have a tremendous impact on who emerges as the party’s presidential nominees. And why shouldn’t Massachusetts have a big say concerning health care reform? As a reader of this blog, Jim Hicks, noted in an email, they’ve been living under their own reform plan for the past few years.

How fitting. Unbelievable, but fitting.

Health Care Reform Not Inevitable, But Still Likely

Passing major health care reform was never going to be easy. The issues are hard. Partisanship in Washington has rarely been greater. The status quo may be a road to disaster, but it’s a familiar road. Moving America’s health care system in a new direction is a Herculean task. Yet for the past year or more, most observers considered passage of some legislation a better than 50/50 proposition. Now, with negotiations over reconciling differences between the Senate and House versions of reform bills comes down to the wire, what are the chances of Congress passing a bill President Barack Obama will sign into law?

According to the Associated Press, House Republican leader John Boehner is claiming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi may not be able to push health care reform through their chamber. He maintains that “dozens” of Democrats who supported the bill passed by the House in November could turn against the final bill, especially if the there are significant changes to provisions dealing with abortion, aid to the states to pay for Medicaid expansion and Medicare cuts.

The outcome of the Massachusetts Senate race to replace the late Senator Edward Kennedy could also result in some Democrats reconsidering their willingness to go along with this version of reform. Not long ago the conventional wisdom was that winning the Democratic primary in Massachusetts was tantamount to election. However, recent polls show the the Democratic nominee, the state’s Attorney General, Martha Coakley, in a dead heat against Republican State Senator Scott Brown within two percentage points of the Democrat. Special elections are always difficult to predict because turnout is usually so low. Were Senator Brown to win the election on January 19th it would not only deny the Senate Democratic caucus the 60 votes they need to push health care reform through the upper house, but it would make moderate Democrats in Congress recalculate the political price of supporting the current version of reform.

Senator Brown doesn’t need to win the seat to scare Democrats. The race has been described by the media as a proxy on health care reform. Republicans are pointing to the Massachusetts Senate race  to bolster their argument that they can retake Congress in the upcoming elections. While that might be wishful thinking, it certainly would make obvious the political reality that Democratic majorities in Congress will be smaller next year than they are this year.

All of this is some evidence that health care reform could be in trouble. My opinion: passage of health care reform is more likely now than it was in December. Here’s why:

First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are closer than ever to an agreement. "’Prospects of reaching agreement between the Senate and the House are better than they were 24 hours ago. We’re getting close,’ the Associated Press reports House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer saying on Tuesday. Finding a compromise that will earn 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate is not inevitable, but it’s doable. And with President Obama more personally involved in the health care reform negotiations now than he has been in the past year, the chances of finding that combination of trade-offs is closer than ever.

Second, by emphasizing what’s at stake in the Massachusetts Senate race, Republicans have mobilized Democrat voters in the state. That’s the point made by E.J. Dionne in a Washington Post blog. Instead of staying home next Tuesday, counting on the inevitability of Attorney General Coakley’s pre-ordained victory, Massachusetts Democrats know they have to get to the polls. And they are likely to do so.

There are other tea leaves increasing the likelihood of a health care reform bill becoming law in the next few weeks. Senator Reid made some fairly obvious deals to get the 60 votes he needed to move health care reform out of the Senate. The most egregious was promising to pay Nebraska’s increased Medicaid costs in perpetuity at the request of Senator Ben Nelson. Republicans jumped all over that deal. Even the Republican Governor of Nebraska attacked the deal.

Well, fine. Senator Nelson can now head back to Nebraska and show he fought hard for the state, but Governor Dave Heineman killed the deal. (At the moment, Senator Nelson is calling for all states to get the same Medicaid relief as he negotiated for his own state). Yet Senator Nelson is still likely to support whatever health care reform bill emerges from the current negotiations, unless the abortion language is significantly weakened. What else can he do, proclaim that unless Nebraska gets a windfall he’ll torpedo reform for the rest of the country? So what’s likely to happen is that the GOP will likely to embarrass Democrats into eliminating the most glaringly unjustified deals, but not strip away any votes as a result. Meaning the bill will be “better” (for containing less pork), but will still keep the votes recruited by the eliminated pork.

Another reason health care reform is likely to pass is that Democrats can’t afford to have it defeated. The Democratic Congress has actually accomplished a significant amount in the past year (you may not agree with what they’ve done, but they’ve done a lot). That’s the argument made by Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter. But in the public’s mind, Congress will be judged by what they do on health care reform. Their constituents, both at home and in the political arena, are demanding results. If they pass something now they will have 10 months to convince voters their fix is better than the status quo. If they fail, they will demonstrate they’re a do-nothing Congress. In these circumstances, something is better than nothing.

Painting a scenario in which health care reform goes down in flames is easy. And I’m not saying health care reform is inevitable. But this Congress and this President have gotten closer to passing health care reform than any lawmakers since the push for comprehensive reform began in the 1940s. President Obama and Democrats in Congress have bet their political credibility on producing a bill. They’re close to the finish line. Odds are, they cross it.

Of course, signing health care reform legislation into law is only the beginning. But that’s a topic for a future post.