Sorry, but I don't understand. Why do you keep referring to this bill as if it were something worth passing ? If we're going to mandate complete coverage without adequately supporting the many millions of families which won't be able to afford it, then I want to see the bill killed, as in Kill Bill, get it ?

Lieberman will vote to filibuster no matter what is or isn't in the bill.

"If the Senate is still debating the bill in January, it's that much more likely to fail."

Not if what they're discussing is what to put in and leave out of a 50-vote reconciliation bill....

Obama needs to forget about a state of the union address that trumpets the Democrats accomplishments. Instead he needs to start lay out a case for why Democrats shouldn't be tossed to the curb in 2010.

His state of the union speech needs to say:

- The country has a broken government, caused by an opposition party that has no ideas and uses unprecedented numbers of filibusters in the Senate to block legislation that will help ordinary people.

- The economy sucks because of Republican policies, which they want to go back to, and because of some Democrats who voted for those policies.

- Tax cuts for the rich don't pay for themselves. Deregulation leads to abuse, and possibly to financial meltdowns. The private sector is not the solution to every problem.

- The deficit is huge because of Republican policies. It continues to grow because the Democrats have to spend money to fix what the Republicans broke.

- The above is probably a surprise to many Americans because journalism in the mainstream media is also broken. Rather than digging up facts, journalists merely go with "fair and balanced" where they bring in spokespeople for both sides of every issue. So we end up with, "Tonight we discuss whether the Earth orbits around the sun. We have representatives from both sides of the debate . . . . "

Obama said in the campaign that he would bring a Chicago mentality to the White House, where if one side brings a knife he would bring a gun. So far, all he's brought to the fight are olive branches.

Passage by Christmas? Three words: Ain't. Gonna. Happen. Why? Because delay helps Republicans kill the bill, which has been their aim all along (and by Republicans, I mean Lieberman, who's been one for two years, a fact the Dems have failed to notice). Because Harry Reid is majority leader in the Senate and can't find his ass with both hands (the Lieberman and abortion roadblocks could have been foreseen by a savvy political operator but Reid isn't one). And because Obama has telegraphed his desperation to pass this bill so many times, the opposition will go to ANY lengths to kill it. That said, while it will be a huge disappointment for Obama, it's actually better for Democrats for this Frankenstein not to pass. Mandates without adequate subsidies or a public option will only turn voters against Democrats in droves.

Here's what the Dems could do and it would cost little or no money:

1)Junk these stupid bills and
2)Take away the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption.
3)Tightly regulate the industry like other countries do so human health is the primary consideration, not profit. This would not provide insurance for everyone, but it would be a HUGE leap forward.

But it won't happen because too many members of Congress are in bed with the industry.

The president has played for time well , as a thinking person opposed to a nihilist . I don't feel comfortable going into a contest and playing the way I perceive the style of our President . To this point there have been some eye opening humiliations for the brain dead opposition that have been , almost , fairly reported . I may be childlike in my calm , but really after eight years of 22 million lies perhaps it is all that is left .

If the bill is killed and nothing passes, say goodbye to health reform for a generation. The insurance companies win. This is historic and I'm sick of Dems whining about it not being perfect. It sucks that Lieberman is such a pissy scumbag (thanks Connecticut!) but this bill is a good start. If we get an influx of tea baggers elected because Dems are sitting out the next election, because they didn't get single payer, then this country deserves to have the crazies sink it into a hole.

You know, if this bill were able to pass the house someone from the house would be out saying so this morning to reassure iffy Senators and politicians.

Where are they?

I admit to having grown very jaded at this point, but maybe we should just drop the illusion that anything approaching real reform ever had a chance. The game now appears always to have been to get the mandate (ie new profit for the insurance industry, which will be shared with their favorite political cronies) without any meaningful restrictions (ie real reform). I expect this kind of game from the Republicans, but am very saddened to find the Deomocrats having learned how to play it as well. The system is utterly broken.

Newbie, that's hilarious. Those of us willing to sing the party? Well, we think the country deserves to let the crazies kill it because moderates like you refused to allow any real progress.

The only difference is that you think Obama is good enough, so you'll vote for the party; while we don't, so we won't.

If YOU had a president you were extremely, ideologcally opposed to, you'd be doing the same thing. Remember how the 'moderates' acted in 72 and 88?

I've repeatedly seen comments to the effect that "It's a terrible bill, but it's a good start to genuine, affordable health care." My question is simple: how is it a good start? It's an end, not a beginning. It will become a law, not a shrub. It's not going to develop enthusiastic support 5 or 10 years from now by the likes of Landrieu, Snowe, Inhofe, McCain, etc. It's in fact a giveaway to the insurance industry, since it mandates a level of coverage that doesn't currently exist, without setting any requirements for accountability.

If it is in fact a matter of declaring victory and running away, fine, but let's say so, here, just among us little kids. If not, then what does this bill actually begin? I'm genuinely curious, here.

The bill as written may or may not be a "shining first year accomplishment" that will help Democrats in 2010 and 2012. That will depend on how many immediate and obvious benefits it produces for large numbers of middle class voters -- as opposed to increases (or no decreases) in cost of their drugs, co-payments, health insurance, etc. The final "compromise" may be the Democtatic equivalent of the bill that passed several years ago that mostly benefitted the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. What is now obvious from what has happened with the stimulus package, health care, Afghanistan, financial and bank reform is that Obama and the current Senate Democrats are far too easily "rolled" by intransigent opposition--- whrther is is Republican, Lieberman, bankers, Iranian Mullahs, Pakistani politicians, Us Generals, whomever. THAT meme will be hard to reverse and will produce ever-increasing troubles for Obama and Democrats.

The game now appears always to have been to get the mandate (ie new profit for the insurance industry, which will be shared with their favorite political cronies) without any meaningful restrictions (ie real reform)

Well, of course. Now could you please explain that to the aptly named newbie695? Oh wait, that's a truly hopeless cause.

The Senate plan is now worse than the status quo. I hope it will fail, and someday when there is a Democrat in the White House we can try again.

Obama promised me all these things and has made no effort to deliver any of it:

“The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency.”

The Obama-Biden plan will “allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S.”

The Obama-Biden plan will “allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.”

“I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

“What they’re struggling with is they can’t afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can’t afford it, they will buy it… Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don’t get it… I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it’s not affordable, then there’s going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don’t have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don’t think, is helping those without health insurance.”

“Obama administration officials were not pleased when word leaked out earlier today that the White House was leaning on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Lieberman on a public option alternative-and they gave their counterparts on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. an earful about it. But in the end, sources are unanimous: The White House wants Reid to hand Joe Lieberman the farm.”

Re: Above poster's comments:

I'm still unclear how this 50 vote thing works..or rather the downside of it...

Does the Senate truly have leeway to "discuss what to put in and leave out" of a reconciliation bill?

I thought not..that if it goes the way of cloture, it would go to a designated finance committee comprised of limited folks/ goals..
and many loopholes that remain within this from
what I hear being described as why it really isn't a good idea..but maybe at this point, it
IS a good idea???

The key would be if those goals would include cutting costs and increasing competition/choice more than what is there now. Assuming even that what is there now doesn't get chopped out even more.

Will someone please tell me of what the current bill consists? What is and isn't in it? Does any one really know? I am so confused by all the recent events that I can't tell if it's even worth supporting it anymore. Please set me straight.

At this point, Reid should put back in a strong public option and let it fail. What's left isn't worth passing.

Blah, blah, blah....

What happens when the CBO comes back and says the bill costs more without the public option...

"Worse, the longer health-care reform takes, the longer it is until Democrats can shift the spotlight back to jobs and the economy."

I feel like this is a point so obvious it shouldn't even need to be stated, but apparently that's not the case - isn't that what they should've been doing all along?

Wow , Mr. Bennen receives even more praise from the curdled myopia , made possible by the savings made by cutting funding to mental health . Thanks to saint raygun .
Thanks ronnie

So, let me see if I correctly understand the plan to get the Democratic faithful to come out and reelect Democrats in 2010:

* Pass legislation that has the government forcing Americans to purchase overpriced healthcare policies from the for-profit private-sector health insurance corporations with no restrictions on their ability to continue to price-gouge consumers.

* Escalate the war in Afghanistan and send in even more troops.

* Allow corporate America to continue to pay egregious amounts of bonuses with no attempt to recapture what’s already been paid.

* Instead of making the Rich & Corporate pay down the massive federal budget deficits that they created and benefited from, the plan is to once again make those who did not create or benefit from the massive federal deficits pay for them.

* Allow the Unemployment Rate to remain ridiculously high.

* Allow millions more families to have their homes foreclosed upon.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

soullite,

Really, you are "extremely, ideologically opposed to" Obama? He's not a liberal, that is obvious by now, but he's also far from being a conservative.

The fact is ideological purity gets you almost nothing these days. Right-wingers didn't get abortion banned or prayer in schools when they had the government, and liberals won't get single payer or gun restrictions now. Would I like single payer with a tightly regulated health care industry? Hell yes. But could we get that in a country where corporations literally buy off politicians and get poor people to rage against policies that would benefit them? Hardly.

Clinton couldn't get healthcare done, and we got 15 years of Republican control over Congress and GWB. I'd rather not return to those dark days.

I'm still wondering, if this piece of crap actually passes out of the Senate, how it gets 60 votes after it comes back from conference, where the progessives will certainly be demanding that there be changes in their direction.

This is a procedural question I had from last night, and I'm still wondering--can it be filibustered after returning from a conference committee? If not, then yeah, pass any piece of crap Lieberman wants and roll him after conference.
But if it can be filibustered after conference, then it won't pass, and I don't think I'll be too disappointed. Obama doesn't deserve a "win" here--he hasn't shown any leadership and has given in to every "moderate" and conservadem demand.
And to give backstabbing Lieberman so much power, it's just a bridge too far.
There's nothing to build on, there won't be any more Dems in the Senate next year than this year, they'll have a very slim majority at best, then the Liebermans will have a real field day, while Obama and Rahm just say "how may we please you?"

If The house or "the left" kill this bill, the world doesn't end. Healthcare will not be doomed for a generation. Steve Benen is either an idiot or he's lying, I'm not sure will and I doubt the hack himself even does.

No, Obama has made it clear he wants a bill at all costs. IF We kill the Bill in the Senate, he WILL be forced to use reconciliation. He will not accept a loss on this.

Newbie, he is a neoliberal. I'd rather let this country rot in conservative hands than allow a neoliberal to control it. All they are is a neoconservative with a brain, and that doesn't exactly make them less dangerous.

I just can't believe Obama thinks he can sign any bill with a "HCR" label on it and think that it's a success for him and that he'll be rewarded for it.

He hasn't shown much leadership, but he has been a fairly brilliant politician, and I just can't believe he's that stupid on this issue wrt electoral consequences. Or does he actually think we're that damn stupid? If so, it's his biggest miscalculation ever.

Just what I wanted! A shitty bill from the WIMPY party! How did they know what I've always wanted more than anything in the world!?!

I'm starting to be really afraid about what Droopy Dawg has on the Democrats. It's got to be something pretty vile to let that dentured douchebag get away with the shit he gets away with. Another guy who better never get within ten feet of me, if he likes his teeth/dentures..

The Democrats would be far better off proposing a series of small bills, each one simple and designed to be hard to vote against.

Pass "Health Insurance Bill of Rights", providing much better consumer protections for private health insurance, including eliminating pre-existing conditions, outlawing many common exceptions and requiring simpler language for policies, regulating the appeals process in ways favorable to consumers, and preventing insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick.

Pass "Medicare for Kids", extending Medicare coverage to everyone under 18 whether they have insurance already or not. Not only would this make sure all children have health care, but also it would relieve beleaguered state budgets for the states that try to do this themselves now.

Pass "Buy Medicare", allowing anyone, regardless of age, to buy-in to Medicare. This puts pressure on the private health insurance industry by offering a strong public health care option to everyone.

Each of these are simple, easy to understand, very popular in polls, and hard to vote against. If Republicans want to oppose these, let them go on record as voting against them, then slam them in the 2010 elections.

Bill Clinton was defined by how he dealt with his loss of a Health Care Bill. Obama should go re-read the history. He is going to walk the same path now.

This bill deserves to die. The Senate bill at least. It mandates that people go out and buy a policy from the Insurance companies, and it doesn't do a thing to help those very same people.

Look at what was supposed to be accomplished by a Health Care Bill: cheaper coverage, cheaper medications, eliminate pre-existing conditions, eliminate dropping someone who gets sick. This Senate bill does none of these things.

Kill the DAMNED BILL. It's a suicide bill for the Democratic Party. And shit can Lieberman from any committee he's assigned. Let the Republicans give him assignments.

Really, you are "extremely, ideologically opposed to" Obama? He's not a liberal, that is obvious by now, but he's also far from being a conservative.

But soullite is a conservative, which is why he trolls here.

It's amazing that the 'debate' on HCR has been dragged on this long, back and forth, back and forth, step forward, three steps back, the sturm und drang about costs and cost savings, etc., while the funding for war and the war supplemental for Afghanistan--which will cost much more than will HCR--will probably pass in a few hours of one day, and with little debate.

It's pretty damn clear what our priorities are in this country, isn't it?

Greg (above) has it right. It should have been done in small, easier-to-pass-bills. But Obama fell in love with the idea of "comprehensive health care reform" and the insurance industry (and Congresscritters owned by them) realized they could cram just about anything they wanted into such a bill as the price for their "participation." I always wondered where Obama's ego was, since it's rarely seen. Now I think I know. Incremental reforms wouldn't be a monument to him -- remaking the system would.