It’s been a tumultous week, capped by President Barack Obama’s announcement this morning that he is delaying a trip to Southeast Asia in order to focus on the health bills.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll thinks the move “proves, again, how desperate the White House is for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate health care bill before the Easter recess. The Obama administration knows the American people hate Obamacare and that after a week listening to their constituents back home, there is no way the House will take up the Senate bill again.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein wonders, “What sort of guarantee does the House want from the Senate?”  

The issue, in this telling, isn’t that the House needs an assurance that the Senate intends to pass a reconciliation package. It’s that the House needs some assurance that the Senate intends to pass a reconciliation package that fulfills the House’s concerns. “One of our takeaways from this whole process is to never underestimate the power in the Senate for just one senator to jam up the works,” says the staffer.

But The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward reports that Dems might have another “trick” option up their sleeve: “It’s called the ‘Slaughter Solution’  (named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, chair of the powerful Rules Committee) … House Democrats have been searching for a way to alleviate members’ concerns that if they vote for the Senate bill and the Senate does nothing to fix it, they will be hung out to dry as having supported a piece of legislation that many across the country dislike… Technically, using the ‘Slaughter solution,’ they’ll never have voted for the bill they find odious, even if their vote on the reconciliation legislation will have been the vote that passed the Senate bill into law.”

Reason’s Peter Suderman has his take on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s week with the health bill: “To sum up: A procedural barrier was confirmed, an old issue-based conflict proved effectively unsolvable, another issue-based conflict flared up, and the president all but admitted that 1) his timeline was (yet again) unrealistic and 2) the votes to pass the bill don’t yet exist.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky thinks things are still up in the air:  “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) won’t know if she has the votes until the last possible moment and there is certainly no guarantee that they will pass it.”

But Time’s Karen Tumulty is ready to predict: “After all the missed deadlines, I’m hesitant to say this, but here goes: Next week is the week. The House Democratic leadership now expects to schedule a vote on the Senate health care bill and send it to President Obama’s desk next Friday, March 19, or Saturday, March 20.”

There’s little consensus among bloggers about trends in public opinion toward the health care overhaul bills.

Pollster.com’s Mark Blumethal takes a look at recent poll data and concludes, “Any way you slice it, there does appear to be a real tightening of opinion on health reform although as always, these results are snapshots and subject to change.”

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan comments on a WSJ op-ed by poller Scott Rasmussen that argued polling showed health reform is unpopular.  Sullivan thinks Rasmussen is correct, but adds a different vision of “reality” by saying, “And yet the latest YouGov poll, reflecting the direction of many others, now shows a majority favoring reform, 53 – 47, as I noted yesterday. And Pollster’s poll of polls, excluding Rasmussen’s outlier numbers, favoring the old, white and Republican, show a dramatic rise in support this past month, as the consequences of getting nothing at all begin to sink in.”

But The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle disgrees with Sullivan that Rasmussen’s polls are outliers, arguing: “Okay, first off: Rasmussen is an outlier on presidential approval, not on health care, where it has always been pretty much solidly middle of the pack, and occasionally kinder to the Democrats.  The YouGov poll is an outlier.  YouGov polls approval higher because it doesn’t offer a “don’t know” option, and people tend to be biased towards affirmative answers when they’re being polled.”

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum thinks Pollster.com’s trends are correct. He tries to explain the shift: “What’s really important here, though, isn’t the magnitude of the change, but just the fact that the tide is shifting. This might have something to do with the recent summit and some of Obama’s more aggressive speechmaking recently, but my guess is that it mostly has to do with the fact that there’s an actual bill on the table now; Democrats have something concrete to sell; Republican obstructionism has been a little too screechy for a lot of independents lately; and, most important, it looks like we’re actually in the home stretch.”

In other news, the Congressional Budget Office released updated estimates for the Senate bill today (read CBO director Douglas Elmendorf on the estimates here), but the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says while the bill is “a pretty good deal…it’s not a very well-understood deal.” According to Klein, voters don’t understand the portions of the bill that save money (like an excise task on high cost insurance plans) so “the projections that show the bill saving money don’t make much sense, and so voters don’t believe them.”

But Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out that the updated estimates don’t reflect Obama’s bill or the final package: “This isn’t the reconciliation parallel bill, of course, because as Nancy Pelosi notes, we haven’t seen that yet, and neither has the CBO. This recalculates the CBO’s findings from December, and now they see more federal spending in the first 10 years and slightly less deficit reduction.”

Cusp of victory or death throes? Bloggers on the right and left have very different interpretations of the health reform debate this week.

Critical Condition’s Jeffrey Anderson looks at President Barack Obama’s speeches from this week and says: “The president would like you to believe that he’s riding a wave of newfound momentum. But where would this wave have come from? From his long-winded and widely panned performance at the ‘health summit’? … From polls showing that 81 percent of Americans think Obamacare would cost even more than projected, while only 17 percent think it would lower health costs?”

But The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein thinks public opinion paints a different picture. He posts a chart from the latest Gallup poll and says, “In case you think it’s an outlier, here’s Pollster.com’s trend line on health-care reform. Last night, Stephen Colbert asked me if ‘everybody’ hates health-care reform. The answer is no. The country is closely divided on health-care reform, with a slight plurality in opposition. Moreover, health-care reform is actually getting a bit more popular as it nears passage. Presumably, that’s because people are hearing more about the bill and less about why the bill is failing.”

The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward describes the mood on Capitol Hill Tuesday: “There was churn and noise on Capitol Hill Tuesday, but no discernible progress toward resolution of the health-care fight, as uncertainty prevailed in Washington. … The conventional wisdom is that Pelosi will somehow find a way to pass a bill, despite a staggering set of political and procedural challenges. The complexity and intractability of those challenges is what has much of the city’s political class uncertain if Pelosi can pull it off.”

But The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn bemoans the procedural bickering over such challenges: “Pointing out the hypocrisy of Republican positions on procedural fairness is getting tiresome, I know.  …. (But) let me get this straight: If Republicans want to introduce an endless stream of amendments simply to prevent a majority of Senators from passing some amendments to health care reform, that’s fine. But if Democrats ask the presiding chair to rule the amendments dilatory, thus ending the debate, that’s a violation of protocol and a breach of good faith?”

Heritage’s Kathryn Nix looks at a new proposal in the House that seeks to change the way the Office of Personnel Management negotiates prescription drug prices for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.  According to Nix, the new bill is an example of what could occur under new federal health legislation: “Given the policies embodied in H.R.4489, the FEHBP would be saddled with a new layer of government regulation, an ominous harbinger for the avalanche of federal rule making that would be unleashed under the giant Senate health bill.”

TPMDC’s Cristina Bellatoni reports on a resurgence of television ads spotlighting pro or con positions on the health overhaul bills after a slowdown in the past months.  “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce started a new campaign yesterday as well and Evan Tracey, [president of the Campaign Media Analysis group] expects interest groups to continue jumping into the fray. “These ads are here to stay, we know both sides will make the fall a referendum on health care,” Tracey said.

And The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent also noticed the trend: “Major liberal groups and labor unions allied with the White House are planning a massive TV ad push in coming days to get health reform across the finish line, and are vowing to match the huge amounts conservative groups are spending on the air attacking reform, multiple sources familiar with the plans tell me.”

Bloggers continue to be consumed with whether Democratic leaders will garner the votes needed to pass a health overhaul bill. Check in with The Hill to see the most up-to-date vote counts.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll declares, “Another day, another stream of health care fantasy from the White House. A quick look at two health care events from yesterday, one in Glenside, Pennsylvania, and the other in Tawas City, Michigan, clearly exposes the yawing gap between the Obama administration’s health care rhetoric and cold hard legislative reality.”

Keith Hennessey makes a similar point, saying, “Public signs of optimism from the President, his team, and Democratic Congressional leaders tell us little.  We don’t know if they actually think they will have the votes, or if they are asserting that to try to make it true.  Imagine the impact if Speaker Pelosi were to tell the press ‘We might not succeed.’  Doing so would further embolden those marginal Members she is trying to convince to vote aye.  They are telling us they think they will succeed, but they have to say this whether or not it’s true.”

Politico Pulse’s James Hohmann reports that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius spoke Tuesday to the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference,saying, “We are calling on Congress to step up, have an up-or-down vote, help us pass comprehensive health reform once-and-for-all and begin to change a system that’s broken and not serving many Americans.”

Bob Laszewski wants to know “Just where is the moral imperative in ramming a trillion dollar entitlement expansion through knowing full well it will make our long-term deficit nightmare even worse—for those now uninsured and for everyone else?”

Reason’s Peter Suderman looks at reports that Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., might reach a compromise on the abortion language that will ultimately be put forward, but thinks “no one really knows for sure, and what we’re left with is a waiting game.”

Should Democrats muster the votes to pass a bill, Time’s Adam Sorenson says “I’m very skeptical of Senator McConnell’s assertion that every election in November will be a referendum on the issue. The notion that health care will totally overshadow jobs and the economy is far-fetched and, as Kate suggested, Republicans are probably just saying this to spook skittish House Dems.”

And The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein appears on The Colbert Report to explain budget reconciliation.

Bloggers are trying to guess which members of the House of Representatives are aligned with Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich, and his promise to vote against the Senate version of a health overhaul bill because of its less stringent language on abortion funding.

TPMDC’s Brian Beutler tries to “to whittle down a list of likely suspects” of Stupak’s 12 representatives who pledged to vote against the bill. Beutler says, “with leadership and the White House teaming up to twist arm, it’s hard to imagine all of [Stupak's] supporters will stick together. But at the same time, there’s some indication that when Stupak says 12, he’s not far off,” and provides a list of the lawmakers who might vote “no.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey looks at news that one of Stupak’s cohorts, Rep. Dan Lipinksi, D-Ill., says he will vote “no” on the Senate bill and says, “So far, Stupak appears to have accurately described his caucus. There is still a core group of pro-life Democrats who refuse to get rolled by the Senate, especially after going out on a limb and succeeding in passing the Stupak amendment. It will only take a few of them to flip to No to stop the Senate bill from passing the House.” Morrissey cautions, however, that “we have to wait and see whether they remain firm in that opposition.”

Heritage’s Chuck Donovan thinks there’s reason for the pro-life Dems to vote “no” — and calls the current strategy to address abortion language in a reconciliation bill a “pie crust promise.” Donovan says, “The pro-life House members are being asked to believe that once the Senate-passed bill is adopted in toto by the House and signed by President Obama, the Senate, with its pro-abortion majority, will proceed to enact a permanent abortion funding limitation and other provisions that it did not deem wise to include in its own bill, which will be the law of the land.”

But if Speaker Nancy Pelosi manages to crack Stupak’s coalition and garner enough votes to pass a bill, Republicans have a strategy for that scenario too.

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports that “the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said today that GOP candidates will coalesce around a pledge to repeal a health care bill that’s passed by the Democratic controlled Congress this year.” But a number of prominent Republican Senate candidates haven’t signed on to the idea yet.

The National Review’s Mark Steyn argues that “Nobody has ever attempted this level of centralized planning for an advanced society of 300 million people.” He continues, “A bigtime GOP consultant was on TV crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass Obamacare because it’s so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November. Okay, then what? You’ll roll it back — like you’ve rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago?”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein disagrees with one part of Steyn’s argument, saying, “calling it centralized planning suggests that Steyn doesn’t know what the words ‘centralized’ or ‘planning’ mean. But this is what people on the right are reading. No wonder they’re scared.”

Elsewhere, Open Left’s Chris Bowers lists progressive priorities that were included and ditched in the health overhaul bills, and says, “Still, it is an impressive list that should make any progressive activist who participated in the health reform fight proud, even if dissatisfied.  You really did improve the bill, and have the opportunity to keep improving it.”

And a frustrated Karen Tumulty reports (or at least tries to) from Obama’s health care speech in Glenside, Pa. this morning. According to Tumulty, the press corps was sequestered from attendees, “So all I can report is this: The President gave a speech on health care this morning. People applauded and cheered. What motivated them to be here, and what bearing this issue might have on their individual lives — well, I can’t answer that.”