The most amazing thing is that there's a controversy about the right thing to do. Pass the fucking bill. Fix it later.

Or replay 1994, you miserable, spineless bastards.

But will Obama push for it? Hard? Will he bust balls and do all that needs to be done? If yes, it could happen. His presidency hangs in the balance.

If the bill fixed the status quo problems and gives Americans relief, that would be great. Unfortunately, it papers over the problems and creates tons of loopholes for insurers without controlling costs.

House Democrats should not swallow the Senate bill based on some vague promises that more reforms will be enacted later through reconciliation.

Ha, they barely had the courage to do it the first time, and they dithered for a year. There's no spine left. The Dems will now implement the Tea Bagger program of spending austerity, and then they will take the blame when it doesn't work. Who doesn't see this coming?

>>Or replay 1994, you miserable, spineless bastards.>>

Exactly

If the Democrats can't get this done with massive congressional majorities plus the presidency, why would I ever want to support them?

Why? Why spend energy trying to pass something that sucks so bad? Yea I know you think the pre-existing conditions thing helps but the bill does absolutely nothing to control costs and wasn't that the whole point? What good does offering up policies to people with pre-existing condidtions do if the rates are so high no one can afford to buy them?

Sorry....you aren't thinking chess, you're thinking checkers on this one. Use reconciliation & pass a bill people see will help them. People don't see that in this one & don't believe it either.

They have maneuvered themselves between a rock and a hard place. HCR sucks they way they wrote it and now they can't change it. They lost the base pandering to banksters,insurance fraudsters and corn pone Fascists.The country needs a party of the Left not Republican Lite.

"The most amazing thing is that there's a controversy about the right thing to do. Pass the fucking bill. Fix it later."

If this bill is dropped the insurance companies will take this as a sign that they can do everything they want. All limits of decency will be removed.

If you think the ins. cos. are greedy bastards now, just wait.

Break this filibuster nonsense once and for all. The Senate is already the most undemocratic body in the government. Find a way to make it function by majority rule now or risk losing control of the whole agenda.
This can be done. The time is now.

...and Republicans everywhere are laughing all over their piglike faces. You're so easy, Dems; it's getting easier instead of harder because only one party is LEARNING!

Thanks, Massachusetts! How does it feel to know you are patriotic heroes to the likes of Sarah Palin, Peggy Noonan and Joe the Plumber?

It could have passed if it hadn't been this 10,000 page monstrosity that serves as a paean to out of control, undisciplined government. No lawmaker knows what he's voting for anyway, the thing is too damn big.

Dems will be offing themselves in droves by jumping from the top of the bill.

Equally disastrous for Democrats, however, would be to pass the Senate bill (or, worse, a compromise-of-that-compromised compromise) and have it land with a thud on the nation. No public option. A statutory green light for pharmaceutical monopolies. A complicated insurance exchange that can't possibly be up and running smoothly for years to come. Public disclosure (it will happen) of the details behind Rahm Emanuel's crooked deal with the drug corporations. Fines on young people and the middle class, fer Chrissake, who ignore the "mandate." Ben Nelson's thievery. Etc. etc. etc.

Health care reform has become in the public mind just one more piece of evidence illustrating how firmly in bed Democrats are with "too big to fail" banks and the greed of Wall Street.

The Blue Dogs and Lieberman screwed the pooch on this one, and the White House fully enabled them.

#4 is not serious - the Dems have already proven that they can not govern, or they would have had this nailed down a long time ago. #3 is inaccurate, the reason any party exists is to hold power and that is more important than ANY program. Duh. #5 is apocalyptic - our children and grand-children wil have a chance to see the Dems screw up health reform in the future, no doubt.#2 is debatable.

#1 is true, but if the people are too stupid, and the system too broken, well, we get what we deserve. Let the rates continue to climb and the companies continue to deny, then the Rep. majority will get a shot at screwing up reform too.

Anybody else thinking Paris, overpriced tiny apartment?

Despite the delusions of passing a comprehensive bill under reconciliation, and the progressive "take my marbles and go home because this sucks" attitude expressed by some (I'm looking at you desmoinesdem and kindness), the Senate bill should be passed and economic issues such as Cadillac plans taxation can be managed under reconciliation.

Why? Because many reasonable bloggers and analysts have reviewed it and concluded that it definitely improves the situation, though pretty much all agree it is not the perfect bill. So it is not the "nothing" or "worse than nothing" that these people think it is. This is one of the clearest cases of the perfect being the enemy of the good that I've ever seen.

Moreover, as a grassroots worker (I won't dignify what I do as "organizer" though I am a precinct captain), I guarantee that if this goes down, we'll get 1 person campaigning in 2010 or 2012 when we got 10-20 in 2008. That's a recipe for total disaster.

paris? I thought the standard threat was to move Canada if a majority of people in the U.S. disagreed with your policies. Plus ca change, plus ce le meme chose.

That's the problem - "A Democratic Party that would abandon their central initiative this quickly isn't a Democratic Party that deserves to hold power. If they don't believe in the importance of their policies...", "if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose--and deserve to lose. The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

Your premise is completely mistaken. The secret deals with Tauzin and AHIP, letting Baucus play footsy with Grassley for months, letting the Blue Dogs run the show, and coming up with this travesty of a bill that consists of massive corporate welfare, doesn't even include antitrust--THAT is abandoning our central initiative, disbelieving the importance of our policies, and, EXACTLY, becoming pale copies of Republicans, just like Bill Clinton was.

PASSING this bill = pale copy of GOP

No question, passing nothing is a disaster. But Obama and the DLC corporatists have guaranteed that a disaster is the best-case outcome. If instead of this Obama and the Dem leadership had fought tooth and nail against the banks and for genuine HCR, and LOST, we'd be in a far better position, and the public would be blaming the GOP for shutting down the government.

As many have said, the Brown debacle was about jobs. But there is a connection. People wanted to see things done differently in D.C., they wanted to see a real choice between Dems and GOP. Instead Obama stole MASSIVELY from Main Street to give welfare to Wall Street pals who were his top donors, something ONLY Republicans normally have the gall to do. Then we watched as Obama sold out every promise he made about health care in favor of corporate lobbies and lobbyist-shill Senators like Baucus, whom he never once threatened or took to task in the bully pulpit. Baucus should have been publicly pilloried from the White House as a corporate stooge! But Obama CANT do that because after giving Summers and Geithner carte blanche everyone can plainly see that Obama himself is a corporate stooge. The idea of criticizing Blue Dogs for doing corrupt things Obama himself has been doing to the hilt would just be laughable. Instead you are seeing the WH and Rahm supporting Blue Dogs AGAINST actual Democrats and democratic policies.

Obama is exactly what Kennedy feared--and what a stunning betrayal of Kennedy, his memory, and his courage in being first to endorse Obama--Obama is a pale carbon copy of the GOP. Passing the Senate bill will only help to confirm that. You can't put lipstick on a pig.

Actually, what MichMan says makes a certain amount of sense, as long as the election will be decided by the Democrat base turnout. If you need independents on the other hand, I don't think it's smart from a political standpoint to give them two fingers and a moon.

If the Democrats as a group are willing to lose political power for a while to pass the bill, then I say go for it. If you really believe in the bill, it's worth losing the house and senate for a few years.

It is sad news that Obama's pick for head of TSA has pulled out, because of the repub politicising his nomination, it is sad for the country because this man was a good choice.

Change the Senate's rules. Change the Senate's rules. Change the Senate's rules. What I tell you three times is true. Change the Senate's rules. Change the Senate's rules. Change the Senate's rules.

If this bill is dropped the insurance companies will take this as a sign that they can do everything they want. All limits of decency will be removed.

If you think the ins. cos. are greedy bastards now, just wait.

Bingo, bingo, bingo.

Obama and his gang really need to pump up these folks and remind them of these five very salient talking points NOW.

Jesus fucking Christ. The horse is out of the fucking barn Stevie. It is GONE. Closing the barn doors now is pointless and stupid.

Barney Frank and other Dems in the House are making it clear that there will be NO bill. The bill is the horse. The horsie is gone. Get it?

Sheesh.

What part of "a majority are now opposed to the healthinsurance company welfare bill" do you not understand? Hell's bells

Also, in reference to MichMan's comment, another strong possibility, given the left wing dislike (that's not too strong a word, I think) for this bill, is that you might pass it and still end up with only one person campaigning in 2010-2012. You're probably screwed either way, so go with your convictions.

I pretended to vote for Obama because he was postracial, unlike all you people who won't admit that racism is over in this country. Now he's just another Harvard elitist doesn't understand you can address major issues in this country without making lawmakers read long bills with big words in them that cut into their vacation time. That's totally antifamily and you're committing suicide if you think voters will stand for that. But suit yourselves.

The bill is dead. That is a fact.

Even if it were passed it would NEVER get "fixed". How well has "No Child Left Behind" done as far as "fixing it" gone eh? You'd get the same shit with the bill. The insurance and big pharma corporations would have gotten their giveaway and there would be NO moves to cut them off by actually improving the bill for real human beings.

The bill was fatally flawed and would NEVER be fixed if passed. That is just the way it "works" in DC.

A moment such as this is the reason I am not a Demcrat - bumblers who get no props for trying to govern! Teasers of good government, posuers of actual governance!

Instead of imploding because they left the backdoor wide open, the Dems should stop whining and git er done! -Kevo

Why is everybody ignoring the elephant in the room? Obama PERSONALLY campaigned for Coakley at the end. He put the White House political machine into action on her behalf and THE VOTES WERE NOT THERE.

To a congressional Democrat that means Obama does not have the coattails to deliver the votes in Nov 2010. Yes you can argue the machine was late in coming. You can argue Coakley was a crappy canidate. But what Dems see is Obama putting his presitge on the line and failing to deliver when it counted.

But to a red/purple state, Democrat if Obama can't deliver votes in MA then there is no way he can deliver in Ohio or Indiana or Nebraska.

To congresspeople a President's political power lies in his ability to get them votes (as wrong as that may be) and to them this proves he can't.

Congressional Democrats are going to abandon Obama in droves. The filibuster doesn't mean anything because Reid won't even be able to put together 51 votes out of his own party.

The five points sound like failure promises at the Democrat "purity ball".

"Four. We promise not to govern and get something done. Five. There is no such thing as a now-or-never situation"

It takes 60 votes to change the rules on the filibuster morons.

If we didn't have 60 votes before we definitely don't have 60 votes now.

The "nuclear option" cannot be invoked until the next session of Congress, 2011.

Oh, and I see the fair weather progressives like Paedor Atrebates and his ilk are out in force. How long did it take to fix Social Security? It was something like 30 years of constant effort to improve it, but you WATB want perfection NOW.

Why don't you just go outside and play hide and go fuck yourselves? The adults have work to do.

Neither party can govern - but the dems don't do it maliciously. They're just a bunch of fucking idiots. The goopers have an agenda against the people.

The Senate HCR bill may or may not pass--that's really only up to the intestinal fortitude of Congress--but who here believes that it'll be 'revisited' and 'fixed'?

(Crickets)

Yeah, I didn't think so. Once it's passed that's IT, excise tax, mandates and all. Don't believe me, believe Congress and the White House, who 'plan to pivot on jobs and financial reform'.

Riiiight.

michman - does it make you feel better about yourself when you pull Phauxnews on your fellow progressives? If you actually read what I wrote I didn't say not imply 'taking my marbles and going home'. I said the current bill sucks. By that I mean it will only help to elect Republicans in '10 & '12. And I have repeatedly said to use reconciliation to pass a bill that Americans (including us DFH's & non DFH's) see actually helps them. This bill does not pass that smell test.

So your answer of putting words into the mouths of DFH's that they never said & punching and blaming them is just plain stupid.

It takes 60 votes to change the rules on the filibuster morons.

If we didn't have 60 votes before we definitely don't have 60 votes now.

Doctor Morpheus: The "nuclear option" cannot be invoked until the next session of Congress, 2011.

Actually, the nuclear option refers to changing the rules in mid-session. It takes 51 votes to change rules at the beginning of the session (the way Senate rules provide for), but yes, that's not until January 2011.

Entirely agree with you on the total uselessness of Praedor, though.

sorry morpheus, I am a 100% all the time progressive. As such, I refuse to simply go along to get along merely because a bill ostensibly has a "D" stamp on it (but is otherwise indistinguishable from a GOP bill in its corporatocratic goodness).

I am simply able to deal with reality as it is rather than pine away for a reality that doesn't exist. BARNEY FRANK AND OTHER HOUSE DEMS HAVE DECLARED THE BILL DEAD! What the fuck do you think...you will wave your Harry Potter magic wand and make it magically not dead?

The Dems botched this bastard from the chocks. Obama botched his presidency the instant he raised his pathetically skinny arm and took the oath of office (which he immediately ignored/violated by being OK with illegal domestic spying, torture, illegal wars, etc, and continuing the same).

The Dems have lost. Period. It is DESERVED. It is just the beginning but it IS deserved. They started their "majority" as if they were still in the minority. THEY DESERVE THEIR LOSSES.

My own positions aren't tied to a totally inept political party lead by inept and corrupt idiots like Kaine, Reid, Obama, Rahm, Pelosi, Holt, etc.

You seriously need to deal with the reality as it is and dump the panic and flailing. Leave the flailing to the Democrats. It is the ONE thing they can do with great skill.

Going rogue with denial

I don't think it really matters whether you pass the bill or not Steve.
But then I don't think the MA result has a whole lot to do with healthcare in the first place.

This country is drunk and in denial.
MA votes is a reflection of that.

Here is the truth few want to face:
The voters found a handsome guy in a pick-up truck who told them global warming, if it exists, ain't man caused; ergo, your lifestyle is jim(beam)-dandy. Happy motoring everyone. We can drill ourselves a new future...

The truth is of course horrible different...

It's official: 2009 was the second hottest year ever, and the Pine Island Glacier is gone. Kaput. The game really is up for humanity. The oceans are going to rise by at least 2 meters this century. That's an eye blink in time. We should be moving to high ground right now. But no one wants to man-up and face that. And one can hardly blame our good people. Because the truth is we are living on borrowed time. Understand? The future for humanity is so mean, that denial is like a happy drunk right now.

Rather than face these sobering facts the nation is "browning" out that news and "going rogue" with denial. Handsome dumb politicians are all the rage right now. Sarah Palin is resurgent. America wants someone who will assure them the science is wrong and the bible is right. That's this country's immediate future. Get used to it.

I suspect we are headed for a dictatorship of the right. That's probably the most palatable solution given the emotional make-up of our people. Because clearly: this democracy has no chance at accepting the future or doing anything about it.

We don't have to worry about whether, if we passed the Senate bill, we would ever be able to go back and revise it.

If we pass that bill it will establish personal health care as a necessary governmental interest. The Republicans will be in a permanent state of freaked out about it.

It will be part of the agenda in every election for the next twenty years.

It's a lousy bill.

If it must be passed, pass WITHOUT a mandate. Or Dems will be out of power for the next 20years.

I tried to make it clear that a Brown election would give too much voice to some real outstanding folks - guys who sleep with whores and cheat on their wives, for example. Oh well.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR DEMS to cower. I know that is the ruling pardigm of the MSM. But - the R's sure as hell didn't back down, and they spread lies, shout, etc. WITH NO PROGRAM AND A HISTORY OF FAILED foreign policy, etc. THey have no shame, and it is time to realize that there is a battle every damn day for every thing with them.
I worked for Obama; I gave money to Coakley, etc., and if dems want people like me to care, work, etc., then they need to grow some spines, BE DEMOCRATS, AND PASS HCR NOW.

THEN, GO AFTER BANKS. GO AFTER ALL EARMARKS; ACCELERATE withdrawl from IRAQ; Go after offshore tax cheats like there is no tomorrow, etc. IF the R's want real reform, lets give it to them where they will feel it till it hurts.

TIME TO STOP DICKING AROUND. LET O be above the fray as president, but hire some thugs, get great candidates, and go to the wall and govern, and run, like there is no fucking tomorrow.

Entirely agree with you on the total uselessness of Praedor, though.

What part of "Barney Frank and other House progressives have declared the senate bill dead" do you disagree with or deny or not accept? How is my stating the facts "useless"? How is NOT accepting reality (you guys who want ANY bill so long as it, in Orwellian fashion, is labeled "Healthcare Reform") useful?

How is NOT accepting the data that the American people, by large majorities, supported the public option but, when that was removed, quit supporting the "reform" bill useful? THE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT WHAT THE SENATE WAS SELLING but the senate (and you clowns) went on trying to sell what wasn't wanted anyway!

Reality ALWAYS wins in the end. Suck it up and take a valium.

cld:

We don't have to worry about whether, if we passed the Senate bill, we would ever be able to go back and revise it

Great theory. The PROBLEM is that the people, real people, would be stuck with the consequences of giving away 8% of their income to private insurance without any controls included on premiums or co-pays (or the IRS will nail you). Your rosey outcome of establishing healthcare as a right is useless if the practice of that right NEVER gets fixed.

The theory is irrelevant. It is the LIVING with the consequences of a bad bill that would never be fixed that matters.

Get to the establishment of a healthcare right by other means, NOT via a permanent corporate sellout...and it would be permanent because any attempt to fix it would bring an end to big corporate donations from the insurance companies and big pharma. In that regard, the Dems are just as corrupt as the GOP.

I totally relate to the venom spewed via comments this morning. I sincerely hope y'all remembered to take your meds 'cause coronaries are such an impolite way to protest. I'm mad as hell and I'm going to take it some more. Perhaps I should wander down to the tailors to get fitted for my brown shirt.

YAY! Joe Lieberman is no longer the 60th vote! The era of Holy Joe and Ben Nelson running America is OVER.

VICTOREEEEEE!

Now if Obama/Reid would try to be like Bush/Frist and pass whatever the heck they want with the Senators that they have.

Number of GOP Senators during the 4 Congresses of the Bush presidency: 50, 51, 55, 49.

Number of Dem Senators in Obama's first Congress: 58 (including Bernie)

system is just flat out broke. that's basically it.

Don't worry, people! Obama's on the case, getting people to ... to ...

Um, Mr. President?

Are you there, Mr. President?

ARE YOU THERE, MR. PRESIDENT?!?! IS THIS THING ON???!

Praedor: Get to the establishment of a healthcare right by other means

Yesterday I asked you to describe in detail what those means should or could be. You weren't able to. I asked again, and this sent you running for the exits:

There's no doubt that passing the Senate bill as is will engender voter rage. But those wishing for its death are assiduously avoiding the fact that passing nothing at this point will inspire equal, and likely far greater, voter wrath. The average voter's response to no bill after all this isn't going to be relief and bright eyes turned toward the future. We're taking a hit this year either way.

Other than Praedor's amazingly weak offering about torching billionaires (he also fails to grasp that while corporations don't vote, their controlling financial interest in our pols ensures that their messages significantly shape voter opinion -- did you sleep through the summer, Prae?), none of the KTB gang is providing any explanation of how starting over will bring us to a better bill anytime soon. Any serious attempt to address this needs to do more than make banal generalizations about the coming revolt of fed-up voters leading to the magical passage of single payer. It needs to recognize that there are many possible ways for crooked and vicious leaders to address the further downward spiral of the HC system that will screw the poor and the middle class even more (and even more than the current Senate bill is likely to do). From slashing Medicaid and Medicare to allowing hospitals to withhold emergency care from the poor to allowing insurance companies to ignore the regulations of the states they do business in, there are many, many ways the right can do much greater harm and kick this can down the road with the assistance of an ignorant electorate.

And any argument for starting over also needs to explain how, in the next few years, low-information voters will suddenly become policy-literate, Democrats will gather larger majorities (if we hang on to both houses), the media will stop being right-controlled, red and purple districts will become blue, campaign financing will be transformed, and so on.

In short, look at the political landscape and especially at voters with the same healthy cynicism you bring to the Democratic leadership.

I'm all ears.

I'm still all ears. Do you have anything to say that shows that you have even a remote understanding of the legislative process and, or is it all sound and fury with you? Put up or shut the fuck up.

That actually is the only major promise from 2008 that they can deliver.

Obama has expanded the wars, not ended them, and the spineless Dims continue to fund them.

Even some Dims are unwilling to act on climate control and the EPA remains castrated.

DADT is still alive and well and that was the easy one - who is Commander In Chief of the military?

Unemployment is still increasing, though more slowly.

The budget is not balanced, and of course the wars are killing us faster economically and ethically than they are killing them, whoever "them" are.

Obama now says he wants the money back from the banks, but is that just another empty promise?
How many hundred bank lobbiest will get access to the WH while the decision is being made?

So the only big issue left from 2008 that the spineless dims can deliver is health care.
However, if they pass the Senate version which taxes, fines, and enslaves Americans to the insurance industry - they are right. They are better off dropping it.

But how do they campaign on failing to pass their own horrid bill, and then abandoning it

By all means pass the damn(able) bill. It is SUCH a winner!

Try again. the bill SUCKS and is NOT a good thing(tm).

Shortstop sounds pissed. Isn't the silver lining that you can "finally" kick Lieberman to the curb?

The key point is No. 2. In politics, only losers lose.

So the House should pass the Senate bill. The Democrats should declare victory as loudly as possible. And then they should go hard and populist on the bank fee to energize the base again. This isn't complicated.

yeah, I'm not sure I care much anymore whether the HCR bill passes, especially not the Senate bill as it is. I think my comments at the time stated that it was a bad bill--go figure, the voters don't like being forced to buy a product from an industry that proudly screws its customers on a daily basis with no public alternative, and with regulatory loopholes big enough to drive Scott Brown's truck through, so that rescissions can continue just as they always have.

The Marshall's and Klein's and Benen's of the world treated the Dem base, and most indies, in a condescending manner when we tried to tell you this thing sucked, and now when you've got a clear example of the most progressive state rejecting the crappy bill, you insist on shoving it down everyone's throats.
Frankly, I think it's lose-lose either way, but I'm so drained from watching this process play out and learning how many supposed Dems are just corporate slaves, I'm not sure if I've got the energy to care anymore.
Our government can no longer function because our representative democracy is prevented from doing anything by Senate rules which our supposed leadership refuses to change--because it would be impolite or whatever. No amount of sternly worded blog posts are going to change this fact.
Maybe it will take another eight years of corrupt and incompetent leadership for real progressives to take power, then maybe something will be accomplished before I die. Or not. I doubt I'll care much by that time if anything is even left of our country.
But one thing I'm pretty sure of--if Repubs do retake the Senate with even 51 votes, rest assured they'll get rid of the filibuster. They're a lot of things, but they aren't spineless cowards like the Dems. And I hope Harry Reid loses this year, looks like he will. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, and the Senate as we all know is not a place for nice guys.

Oh, and for the record, I don't think there's a way to pass a better bill through reconciliation or "other means" at this point, but I also don't see how the Senate bill can be "improved upon" through reconciliation or other means either.
I don't see even 50 Dems with the spine to say f-you to the Repubs and go through reconciliation. That would be impolite and unseemly. Only craven Repubs actually fulfill their campaign promises while kicking any obstructionist minority to the curb. Can't imagine why the voters don't trust or respect the Dems because of that. Go figure.
But maybe in another 8 or 16 or 20 years we'll finally get enough real Dems who do what they say they're going to do despite the obstacles.

praedor,

You're paying more than 8% of your income for health insurance now.

It's probably part of employment package. If it weren't, you'd be receiving that much more in cash and paying it yourself.

(and getting a lousier deal).

Thinking a bill like this would never get revised is the rosy fantasy. It will never sit still! One way or another, for good or ill, it will be re-written and re-written for decades.

I see Dr. Morpheus is confused about the nuclear option. The whole point of it is that it does NOT require 60 votes. Wikipedia has a nice concise description of how it works: The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

The suggestion that Obama is a corporate shill and that his stimulus efforts were simply a deliberate transfer of common wealth (taxpayer dollars) to private wealth (stockbrokers and bankers) is demonstrably false. If it were true, Republicans and fundie Christian nutjobs would (a) love him, and (b) claim he was doing The Lord's work. Since they hate him to the marrow of their bones, this claim must be wrong. QED.

The Senate bill isn't the bill I'd write, but, for Democrats, and basic human decency, it's come down to Russian roulette where you have a choice of pistols,

passing it is like choosing a pistol with one bullet and five empty chambers, not passing it is like choosing a pistol with five bullets and one empty chamber.

If the Democrats as a group are willing to lose political power for a while to pass the bill, then I say go for it. If you really believe in the bill, it's worth losing the house and senate for a few years.

Posted by: Seb on January 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Why not? Dems have both the house and senate now and can't do anything. Talk about the worst of all worlds, a massive majority in both houses, the presidencey, but totally lacking political will and power. Only the Democratic party.

Allan - with you all the way on those two posts. Been shocked by Marshall and Benen's 180 from doing due-diligence on Republicans to apoligism for the very same tactics from Obama and the DLCers.

One point I might quibble with: don't think the GOP will need to get rid of the filibuster, because the day the GOP gets 51 votes in the Senate, DLC Dems will start talking about how it's not polite to use the filibuster.

"I see Dr. Morpheus is confused about the nuclear option."

I see you're confused about the rules, Steve.

There is definitely a debate to be had as to whether the Constitution dictates that a simple majority can change the rules or whether Rule 23 in the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to change the rules, but nobody is even having that debate.

Don't pretend that changing the filibuster with 51 votes is a totally accepted premise. It isn't.

How soon before global warming makes Canada comfortable all year round?

If the House gives up on the health care bill now, it is going to be an embarrassment for a lot of shrewd Democrats who voted for it before they voted against it. Maybe the Republicans won't bring that up in 2010.

How exactly does Pelosi pass the Senate version without losing tons of Democrats?

Don't pretend that changing the filibuster with 51 votes is a totally accepted premise. It isn't.

Of course it's not "accepted" But as matter of actual procedure, 50 Senators with guts plus Biden could in fact do it, which is why the Thugs were able to threaten it (and the Dems should have called their bluff.) That it CAN be done is a matter of plain fact, the will to do it is of course a whole other matter.

"PASS THE DAMN BILL...."

Passing the senate bill is a suicide pact.

I can't tell you how many ordinary Americans I hear every day that think that the proposed healthcare reform would tax ALL their healthcare benefits. Sure, they're wrong, but a large majority were wrong in 1994 when they believed that the Clinton administration and the Democratic Congressional Majority had raised all of their taxes, when it really only effected the top 1.2% of taxpayers.

People will go for a surtax on millionaires, but they either don't believe of don't trust that only the "Cadillac" healthcare plans would be taxed.

Did there used to be a Praedor Atrebates posting here who wasn't crazy? Several years ago?

1. The health care status quo is still broken, and Americans still need relief.

But the law is no improvement. Besides that, it is opposed by a majority of American voters.

John S. There is definitely a debate to be had as to whether the Constitution dictates that a simple majority can change the rules or whether Rule 23 in the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to change the rules, but nobody is even having that debate.

The Constitution gives to the Senate and House the sole authorities to write their own rules.

It would be a bizarre exercise of "democracy" to rewrite the Senate rules in order to pass a law that is opposed by a majority of the voters.

q: One point I might quibble with: don't think the GOP will need to get rid of the filibuster, because the day the GOP gets 51 votes in the Senate, DLC Dems will start talking about how it's not polite to use the filibuster.

Lots of precedent for that. Not just DLC, but nearly all Democratic supporters.

"Why spend energy trying to pass something that sucks so bad?"

Because if we don't pass something, tens of thousands of Americans will die.

"Use reconciliation & pass a bill people see will help them."

That approach gives up a lot. For example, I don't think a bill passed through the reconciliation process could include a provision preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Obama needs to lead: Obama and his gang really need to pump up these folks and remind them of these five very salient talking points NOW.

His health care pitch when he campaigned for Coakley was quite muted. Besides, Coakley lost the independent voters by about a 3:1 margin, and independents don't like the health care plan.

Mike from Detroit: So the House should pass the Senate bill.

Does the House have the votes to pass the Senate bill? They only passed the House bill by a vote of 220-215, and the liberal Democrats in the House hate the Senate bill.

I was standing in line yesterday to pick up my prescription and the well-dressed older woman in front of me was asked to pay $170 for three prescriptions. That was with insurance.

She complained, and the clerk checked again. Then she pointed out that it was the beginning of the year and that Medicare had a yearly deductible on prescriptions that had to be paid first. The lady replied "This isn't Medicare, it's an insurance company." But it was one of the Part D. Medicare plans administered by another crooked insurance company. The lady is retired. She left without her prescriptions.

Anyone wonder who the Congress works for? It really is NOT for the American people. That's why all Senators are rich.

Matthew R Marler sounds panicked.

Many months ago I signed a petition urging House progressives to vote against any plan that didn't include a public option. I wish there were a way to rescind my signature now. Since the time I signed the petition there has been lots on the web about how programs like social security and medicare all begin as imperfect plans and then developed over time. Too bad the hard-nosed history was so late to be made public.

I called my progressive congresswoman a few minutes ago to urge her to vote the Senate bill to the President's desk. It was the first call they had gotten about this today. If you're interested in moving healtlh care forward, call your congress-critter and urge them to pass the Senate bill.

Thank you so much for posting this!