Edwards health care pander

I think it's time to rehash this debate. The Edwards deadline--six months to enact a universal health care bill--though not the same as promising that everyone will have health care in six months, is pretty eyebrow raising. He plans to do this, you'll recall by proposing legislation "to end the health coverage currently provided to the president, cabinet, Congress, and all senior appointees in the legislative and executive branches unless they have met his deadline."

There's, of course, the Constitutional objection to this--"No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened"--but I don't actually think that'd be a huge obstacle for him. I can imagine a compelling legal argument that insurance and compensation are distinct. I also see a bit of ambiguity in the word "varying". If, as part of the FEHBP pool, a congressman's health care costs the government $300 a month, then is it varying his compensation to pay him $300 extra per month and wish him luck on the individual market? I wonder how well crusty old Mitch McConnell would like that?

No, the real obstacle here is that the Congress would never pass the Edwards legislation. He'd introduce it, it would either languish or be filibustered, but it would never make it back to his desk. What Edwards could legitimately threaten, I suppose, is to veto the following year's appropriations unless they're stripped of health care provisions for congressmen and relevant executive branch employees. But then he runs the risk of being over-ridden, or possibly even shutting down the government. That's some seriously risky hardball, but at least it's within the realm of possibility. Six months, by contrast, seems impossible.