Parsing the health-care votes (updated)

On the preceding post, commenter Molly says: "So [NY Democratic Rep. Scott] Murphy votes against the Stupak amendment, and then votes against the entire bill as well? What's his reasoning? He would have voted for it had the Stupak amendment passed? Or he's trying to play it both ways? Vote against Stupak to shore up his liberal credentials, yet vote against the overall bill to try and appease conservative voters in NY-20? Either way it seems like a weaselly thing to do. "

Two other New York Democrats from relatively conservative districts, Eric Massa and Michael McMahon, had the same voting pattern. This is the political calculation: Voting against the Stupak amendment appeases pro-choice groups which are extremely powerful in NY Democratic Party politics, whereas voting for it would have enraged said groups. Voting against the entire bill does not do anything to annoy the pro-choice people, but is Blue Doggish enough that it might appeal to fiscally conservative voters. It is the opposite of the politically courageous decision made by Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao.

Update: It seems all New York Democrats voted against the Stupak amendment, while the state's two Republican congressmen voted in favor of it. Nationwide, 64 Democrats voted for the Stupak amendment along with 176 Republicans, while 194 Democrats voted against with one Republican voting present.

Comments

[Brian]

I guess the more I think about it, the less I see any glaring disconnect. If memory serves correct, Murphy supports abortion rights so it's thus not shocking that he'd vote against Stupak. And he also considers himself a fiscal conservative, a group that generally opposes meaningful health care reform, so it's also not shocking that he'd vote against the House bill (which isn't quite as meaningful as I'd like but probably the best we'd get out of this Congress).

[Bob Conner]

So he's in favor of economizing except when it comes to abortion.

[Brian]

http://scottmurphy.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=154032

You can read his b.s. for yourself.

[Brian]

Personally, I probably would've voted against it too. There were parts of it that were fine, others that were insufficient but you take what you can get. But the provision that fines people for not having insurance is completely unconscionable to me. It's basically fining people for being poor or for having fallen on hard times. Granted, these people are post-fetal and thus apparently no longer the concern of some activists, but I still don't think they should be thrown under the bus with a provision that actually worsens the status quo for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.