Dithering Democrats Disappoint

Since Scott Brown beat out Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat (mostly because she ran a sucky campaign; the loss of it squarely on her shoulders, in my opinion and others'), the Democrats are all discombobulated now.

What with the passage of Obama's aim to overhaul health care shot down in that one fell conservative swoop and Teddy rolling over in his grave, the party has been acting rather awkwardly ever since; it's kind of embarrassing.

Losing the seat to a Republican and with no hope bringing off health care reform as intended, the Democrats have started whistling a different tune. Just last year, getting the bill done was of such high import that Obama was setting deadlines to ramrod making legislation ready by the end of summer the year.

As President Obama put it often, "Health reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait". Now it seems maybe not so much.

Despite at first wanting to have something signed into law before the State of the Union address later on this week, now the Democrats think it's probably more prudent, as Nancy Pelosi said, to "pause" and "reflect".

“We’re not in a big rush. We'll take the time it needs to consider the options." She said that without apology and with a straight face (although in Pelosi's defense on that point, I doubt if there's hardly any other face she can pull off... it barely can move).

Whatever, it still makes the party look stupid, this slowed-down approach all of a sudden; now that the votes aren't there, it's not so important anymore getting something done right now.

More disconcerting than that, though, is the artful about-face by hurriedly-promoted David Plouffe as written today in an op ed piece for the Washington Post.

Rambling on in defense of the Democratic party in the wake of the recent bad luck, he points out how important it is for the Democrats to come off strong in November. To that end we still must get passed a health care reform bill (apparently now later than sooner, but still).

He says that once done, "dozens of protections and benefits take effect... parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition," and on he continues.

Fine on the face of it, excepting that part about parents not having to worry their kids might be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. Since when did that become a for-kids-only list item?

All along what has been number one on the agenda of the things needing fixing is to require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions for all Americans.

Obama said last September in his health reform speech to Congress, that it was a priority for "those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions" to have coverage.

I thought everyone was on board with that part of it, even the Republicans agreed about it. Now it seems that it might change to be only for children?

Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars says to anyone who might argue that Plouffe was simply using children as an example, CBS News has already reported that the pre-existing conditions promise was now looking unlikely.

She also links to an article from The New York Times reporting how that they were told the final package might just protect kids under the age of 19 from being denied for pre-existing conditions. No one else other than them.

So what was a necessity for getting done now has suddenly become a luxury we may get done later on instead, and the important bits of the whole thing that everyone did agree on, be that as it may, might end up being nixed in the end.

I know at his upcoming State of the Union address, Obama will do that thing he does so well, making me feel better and proud again to be a Democrat with him at the helm. But for the time being and until then, I am feeling more let down than very much pride.