Healthcare on the ballot

It is difficult to overestimate the political repercussions of the outcome, particularly if Republican Scott Brown wins. If he does, Democrats’ effort to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system will be thrown in disarray because there will be 41 GOP members in the upper chamber.

{mosads}That is not to say a bill won’t be signed into law. Democrats are likely to pass a healthcare measure this year, but the election in Massachusetts could play a huge role in changing what is in it.

Over the weekend, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) floated the possibility of using reconciliation rules to pass a healthcare bill with only 51 votes.

Some in the House are worried that if Brown defeats Martha Coakley, the Senate and the White House will pressure the lower chamber to pass the Senate bill without changes, which obviates the need for another Senate vote. Van Hollen’s comments appear to be aimed at torpedoing such talk.

It is unclear when Tuesday’s winner will be sworn in. There is concern in GOP circles that Democrats will postpone that ceremony if Brown wins.

That would be very difficult to do, however, because some centrist Democrats would likely balk at such a strategy.

Without a doubt, Republicans will attempt to spin a close Coakley win as a major accomplishment for their party and a repudiation of Democrats’ efforts on healthcare reform. If Brown wins, Democrats will say Coakley was a bad candidate. Don’t believe the spin.

A Brown win would be one of the biggest wins for the GOP in decades. It would be historic.

If Brown loses, it’s not historic. It’s another loss for the Republican Party, which has had its share of special-election losses in recent years.

Politics, like sports, is about wins, not close defeats. Republicans did win the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia last year, but at the congressional level, Democrats have dominated in special elections.

Meanwhile, both chambers are back in this week, with the Senate expected to vote on the stalled nomination of Erroll Southers to head the Transportation Security Administration. Lawmakers are also expected to debate a measure that will lift the federal debt ceiling, and various committees will hold hearings on the failed attempt to blow up an airplane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.

PLAYER OF THE WEEK: REP. ANNA ESHOO (D-CALIF.)

It is very difficult for a member of a committee to roll its chairman.

But that’s exactly what Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) did last year when she moved a measure in the Energy and Commerce Committee that would allow developers of complex biological drugs to sell their products without generic competition for a dozen years.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has a bill that would grant five years of exclusivity. But Eshoo had the votes, and her measure ultimately was passed by the House. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) agreed with Eshoo, and the upper chamber also passed a 12-year measure.

But President Barack Obama believes 12 years is too long and is pushing for a shorter data-exclusivity period in healthcare reform.

Eshoo pressed Obama on this issue during the president’s meeting with House Democrats last week. Obama indicated he respects what the House and Senate did while noting that he disagrees with it.

Eshoo reportedly told Obama that changing the language would set a bad precedent.

The politics of this issue are fascinating. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is close with both Eshoo and Waxman. But the bottom line is that if yanking the Eshoo language costs her votes, Pelosi will not do it.

Many brand-name drug companies that employ many workers in many districts want the Eshoo language and have communicated that to members of Congress.

Eshoo has overcome many obstacles in getting her language in the healthcare reform bill, but the obstacle in front of her in Obama is daunting. Based on her track record, Eshoo is not going to bow down to the White House.