Senate bill’s “brand” “tarnished…”

…so they’re going to take the wrapping paper off and take it out of the box and put it all in a different box and then wrap it in some different paper.

That’s how I interpret this, anyway:

In a candid assessment of the politics of health care, DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen said in an interview that the Senate bill’s brand may be irrevocably tarnished, particularly among independents — and confirmed that partly for this reason, Dem leaders may pass a new set of reforms via reconciliation, which could be repackaged free of the Senate bill’s taint.

…Van Hollen stressed that all options remain on the table, including the House passing the Senate bill with significant legislative changes. But he said the Senate bill’s image problems had led Dem leaders to give serious consideration to assembling a new package and passing it through reconciliation.

Tarnished, sure. Unpopular, yes. A major factor behind Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts and the Tea Party movement in general. Backing off it makes good political sense.

But what do they mean by “repackaging?” “A new set of reforms?”

The kinds of things Democrats want to do – the “reforms” they want – won’t work without taxes; without mandates; without greater levels of government control of and interference in health care.

No matter how they “repackage” it, those elements have to be there. And it’s those elements – not whatever number was on the bill – that were unpopular.

Unless…you don’t think they’d pass tort reform, do you? Some kind of medical savings accounts in place of direct subsidies and payments? Scale back the collective power and responsibility in favor of something more individual-oriented?

Might work. Politically and policy-wise.

Via Memeorandum.