Why should they pass the bill? There's no motivation. What're we gonna do if they don't? Mock the 'firebaggers' some more?

While it may seem pointless to write to your representative if he/she already agrees with passing the bill, I went ahead and wrote to mine, urging him to bend the ear of any representative he could. If ever there was a time for logrolling... But then, I wrote to him right after screaming at my health insurance company because they're delaying payment on a claim from last year...

And the tyranny of "no we can't" strikes again. Fear is the word. And the republicans are masters at instilling it in the dems with such little provocation and evidence of a backlash.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll out today shows 55% of respondents want President Obama and Congressional Democrats to "suspend work on the current health care bill ... and consider alternative bills that can receive Republican support." And 39% want to see Democrats "continue to try" to pass health care.
The bill is still a looser and always will be.

Jesus Christ, if D.C. politicians ran by similar poll numbers, we'd have been out of Iraq a few years ago.

No one believes in the Senate Bill. A insurance mandate without the ability to pay for it by many Americans and few mechanisms to control costs is a non-starter. That reality alone will impact for more people than the prohibition against pre-existing conditions, and will have a real impact on wages. While you extend coverage, this bill does not fix what ailes healthcare-the cost of services--and there is no mechanism for creating a single payer system. So, why pass the bill? Maybe something is worse than nothing. If the democrates want to insure the uninsured, increase medicare eligibility to 300% over poverty? Or create high risk pools where the government self-insures? What makes no sense is to create a 100 year foothold for the insurance industry. It was the fatal flaw in the Baucus bill from the beginning, and remains so.

Rick

The problem is the Republicans won't work on a damn thing. They are the party of NO and they intend to shove the filibuster up America's ass until President Obama is replaced by Sarah Palin.

This country will accomplish nothing as long as Reid is unwilling to employ the nuclear option. As to the health bill, well passing the Senate bill in the house might be the last legislative accomplishment Democrats have for a long tim.

Someone, I don't remember who, suggested that President Obama bring Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and John McCain to the White House and ask them what health care reform that they can support would look like.

I say do that, but do it on camera. Then, after the public sees that the Republican media darlings have absolutely nothing to offer, House Democrats will have the political cover to vote for the Senate bill -- after they crawl out from under their desks and change their underwear.

Why pass a horrible and diluted bill that's a mandated giveaway to insurance companies?

It's an awful bill that does nothing for the average person.

"Pass. The. Damn. Bill."

Yes. The Senate should immediately pass the House bill. Problem solved.

Poll jumping

A new USA Today/Gallup poll out today shows 55% of respondents want President Obama and Congressional Democrats to "suspend work on the current health care bill ... and consider alternative bills that can receive Republican support."

And broken down on party lines?
Shouldn't we run those numbers too?

...by party, 67% of Democrats want to see lawmakers continue working on health care...

That's over two-thirds.
You want to hang onto the majority?
Want to have half a chance of getting Senator Obama relected in 2012?
Want to keep the democratic inflated and together?

A failure to pass only empowers republicans to filibuser EVERYTHING. As Yglesias put it:

[T]he Republican strategy of holding out for total surrender is working just fine. They had an interesting theory that if you refuse to cooperate with efforts to make the country better, things won’t get better and the out-of-power party will benefit. The theory appears to be true.

That's where we are...
Passing this bill is now as much about saving the democratic party, having an outside shot at Cap-and-Trade, as it is about covering 30 million more people.

Since when did the "Hold My Breadth While I Stomp My Feet" style of persuasion come into vogue for centrist Dem bloggers.

I detest Republicans. They seem to have learned all the worst possible lessons from the Soviet Communists and combined the tactics they learned with efforts to force the evangelical Christian Taliban on America. So by default I supported the apparently (mostly) sane Democrats.

Congratulations to the House Democrats. The idiots have panicked and are in the process of killing both the health care reform we have had inflicted on us for two-thirds of a year. What they are doing is trying to save their one careers and they are destroying the Democratic Party in the process.

Polls? Shit, where is the leadership? The idiots have failed. America's creaky government is crap and we are ruled by big business, Wall Street Banks and wealthy idiots from the oil industry, Amway, Coors and some newspapers.

Talk about the fear all you want. It is careerism lobbyists and a total absence of leadership.

Plus yesterday the Republican crooks with five seats on the Supreme Court just handed our political system to big business for a generation or more.

It's time for a Constitutional Convention. No politicians allowed to attend.

I should add that there is no Democratic Party worth voting for.

That Obama seems to be sitting on the sidelines instead of rallying the House Democrats is discouraging. The question, I said the other day, was whether Obama had balls or not. Apparently he does not. And the consequence will be that health care reform, most of his legislative agenda, and his presidency will go down the tubes. Yep, the stupidity of hope.

I guess this is what happens when you take a bunch of not very smart people with no idea how to run anything let alone the country and put them in charge. It's like hiring your brother in law the drunk to run a fortune 500 company. PASS. THE DAMN BILL!!!!

What we're witnessing is truly historic in American and perhaps world history: the wholesale and entirely voluntary abdication of a major political party from power in a democracy at a time when it holds a decided majority in the elected bodies of government. The Democratic Party, from Obama down to the lowliest Representative in the House, has completely collapsed in psychological terms.

It is exactly the same thing as the loser in a springtime struggle for mating rights and position in a pack of wolves; the loser goes to the ground, belly up, tail tucked tightly between the legs, urinating submissively in a desperate attempt to ward off any further attacks from the dominant male. If the loser is allowed to live, it may be forced from the pack outright by the other pack members loyal to the victor, but even if allowed to remain it will never again attempt to exert any authority or independence. It will be at the very bottom rung of the power hierarchy, and will have to be content with whatever scraps the other pack members leave it. Functionally a eunuch, it will have no access to females, and its genes will not be carried on.

It's unfortunate in personal terms that Barack Obama happened to preside over the dissolution of the Democratic Party; he's the kind of man that those who founded the republic and wrote the Constitution would have thought ideal for the post of the chief executive. From a personality standpoint, however, Obama has shown himself to be completely unsuited for the office in the degraded political culture of early 21st century America, and his inability or disinclination to truly lead has proven to be the critical factor in the transition to single-party rule. To be fair, it must be said that Obama has 535 willing accomplices in the capitulation to the Republican Party, as the entirety of the elected cohort of Democrats in the U.S. Congress has virtually elbowed each other out of the way in their panicked rush for the exits.

The Democratic Party will continue to exist for a good number of years yet, but as a force to be reckoned with in American life, it is spent, done, finished, and entirely content to be so. There is absolutely no reason for anybody to work for or contribute to any Democrat, and the only reason to vote for one is to simply delay the inevitable transformation to single party rule by the kleptocracy known as the Republican Party, with The News Corporation as the propaganda arm and the Supreme Court to ratify and provide a legal gloss for what Rupert Murdoch tells the GOP to do.

The United States was a great and noble experiment, but it has come to the end of its natural life span; Benjamin Franklin's openly cynical answer of "A Republic, if you can keep it" when asked what the Constitutional Convention had created was prescient. Something new will eventually take its place, but the Democratic Party will have long assumed the role of a historical footnote by then.

Under what condition will this no longer be an option? 30 days? Blue moon? Indefinite?

Obviously the Dems don't have all 535 members of Congress, but even if they did I'm not convinced that the capitulation we've witnessed wouldn't have happened anyhow. They just would have surrendered outright to Sean Hannity.

For the record, I think the House should pass the Senate bill. But I think that the dust that Obama wants to let settle is actually the backfill on the bill's grave. Unlike those genius Dems in Washington before Tuesday, we need to plan for the worst. So...

Alright. HCR is dead. SCOTUS has sold Congress to Wall Street. The Democratic Party has proven itself to be useless. Time to develop a rational strategy to recover. (This does not mean short term. The Obama presidency is toast. It can be manipulated into taking useful defensive measures, but not relied upon to do anything terribly constructive.)

Remember the basic thesis everyone holds about the makeup of the Republican party: Three major factions. Big Business, Neocon Hawks, and Christian Conservatives. Only one of those factions won this week. Wall Street doesn't want to bomb Iran, and probably doesn't want a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. These are fissures that can be exploited.

Unless the SCOTUS ruling can be circumvented (unlikely), Big Business will rule this country for a while. This doesn't mean forever. They almost destroyed themselves (and everyone else) in
2008. They did the same thing 1929-32. It's time to start reading up on U.S. History 1880-1929
and figure out A) how to make sure it doesn't take that long to recover, and B) how to be in position to pick up the pieces when it happens. This may not include the Democratic party. Remember that the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party in the UK in the '20s. Time to brainstorm.

What makes me mad is the "magical thinking" the progressives are indulging in. Firedoglake had a post yesterday that had the following as strategy:

1. Get as much passed as possible using reconciliation.
2. Draft the rest into a new bill and send it to the Senate.
3. Beat up on the Republicans when they filibuster it.

As Paul Krugman called this the redone for politics.

And what's their follow-up to inevitable failure? Beat up on the President for not being tougher.

Let's make it simple. What they want more than anything else is the Public Option. Here's what they don't want to believe: IT CAN'T BE PASSED BY RECONCILIATION.

I've heard an amazing number of people criticizing Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and President Obama, but let's not forget, for all the problems and missteps that may or may not have been made, they got a bill passed by both legislative branches. We've been waiting a century for this and they want to piss it away.

It's not that the Progressives the only people who share this blame, there's lots to go around, starting with the Republicans, the conservative wing of the party and Coakley, but they have it in their power to get it done and instead they want to prove that they can kill the whole thing so that they can get "something better."

Look, I want single-payer health care. Failing that, I want a public option. But for god's sake, they aren't possible! Get over it, get something in place and we can go to work on it.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill!!!!

The senate bill may be a piece of crap (I think it is, in all kinds of ways), but it's crucial here to remember that most American voters simply have no clear idea of how the Senate works. They have no idea how government works. The have no idea that the GOP is obstructing everything. They don't. They're not pay attention that closely.

I know it seems crazy, but it's true. Most Americans don't understand what's going on in DC at all. The GOP banks on this ignorance. That's why that can quite literally betray the country and get away with it, because voters are not informed, they don't know. That's why you get crazy polls like the one cited earlier: Americans simply do not realize that the GOP will vote for NOTHING.

So passing the Senate bill is the only thing left to do, then fix it in reconciliation.

If the Dems had any courage at all, they'd just start over by expanding Medicare to 50 years old, prohibiting insurance companies from raising rates, or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, AND pay for Medicare expansion with a tax on the wealthy. That's Klein's suggestion and it's a damned good one--I'd been saying the same for months. Pass that through reconciliation--you know Congress would never rescind it at the sunset deadline..it'd be the law forever.

But, the Dems have no courage. It's very, very sad, because this really is the last shot we'll ever have: once the SCOTUS decision's consequences take effect, I can't help thinking the Democrats will never run this country again.

Yes, Yes, Yes!

To the House: PASS THE DAMN BILL!

And then start defending it. And that should actually be fairly easy.

Consider the following, via Brad DeLong and by Howard Gleckman:

"George Bush could have proposed the Senate health bill. If he had, those Republicans who now loathe the measure would be at the barricades defending it... (I)t is pretty simple and not very radical. At its core is a health system that relies on employer-based private insurance to cover most working people... The changes: Insurance companies would have to offer coverage to all, regardless of pre-existing conditions; everyone would have to obtain basic coverage or pay a penalty; exchanges would enhance the individual insurance market; the government would subsidize premiums for those who cannot afford them, including both individuals and small businesses; and Congress would take some small steps to slow the growth of health costs."

"None of these ideas are new and most used to sit comfortably in the GOP mainstream. The Senate bill mimics the framework of the 2006 Massachusetts health reform, an idea that was pushed by Republican then-Governor Mitt Romney and, as we know by now, was supported by new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown.... In 1993, Republican senators Bob Dole and John Chafee proposed a reform that included an individual mandate, cost controls, and generous government subsidies. In 1994, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Chafee and conservative Democrat John Breaux included many of the same elements...."

To me, this bill (as passed by the Senate and now awaiting House approval) is really the only way of getting to universal health care within the American system of private, for-profit insurance (with Medicaid for the very poor and Medicare for the elderly). Republican moderates used to know this. They have abandoned the field. Let's take it. We are now the center plus the left. I know it's hard to keep the center-left coalition together (as the last year has shown), but over time (and especially coupled with demographic trends) it will be a big winner. And the only real way forward for America, since the Repubs now offer nothing but tax cuts, torture, and an unsustainable marriage of far-out populist flimflam and ever-more corporate control.

Democrats in the House: Pass the damn bill. Then start defending your achievement. Our achievement. Improve it as the years go by. In the meantime, we've got a bunch of other issues that need attention. Let's get to work

Get this done.

This morning NPR ran a report where they had an economist sit down with a Union worker from AT&T & he tried to convince her she should give up her 'Cadillac' Health Care Benefits so AT&T would pay her more instead:(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843914) The Union worker is a woman who has worked at AT&T for 18 years, makes $42K a year with a health plan valued at $8K.

This is exactly the problem with the Senates bill. We should not be expecting to pay for any Health Care reform on the backs of our Middle & Lower-middle class. The whole idea of a 'Cadallac tax' is absurd. That coupled with the mandate to force people to buy coverage and no cost controls is why the Senate plan is exactly the wrong way to go.

The sky may be falling in Democrat land, but shooting ourselves in both feet because a segment of the media & blogsphere refuse to think about the consequences in the next election is idiotic.

Redo the Senate bill so it is paid for fairly.

"Pass. The. Damn. Bill."

My wife and I both called our congressman to request that he fight to pass the damn bill. Have you?

Dan Larison has just called my attention to an interesting post-election survey conducted by Research 2000 for several left groups including MoveOn. It indicates that a critical chunk of Massachusetts Obama voters [18%] voted for Brown, while others stayed home. It appears they may have accounted for most of the swing vote. And they voted for Brown in large part because they wanted to see the health-care bill killed for left reasons--no public option, the excise tax, the individual mandate to buy private insurance, etc. What does this suggest? To me, it suggests that the left is deeply, deeply split on this. For all the screams of "cowardice" directed against people like Barney Frank, it increasingly appears that they're listening to their progressive constituents on this matter--and that the left wonkosphere has lost touch with a lot of its own people.

The Dems will get slaughtered in 2010. The only way to prevent that from happening is to pass this bill now.

You don't punt when it's fourth and goal.

Don Young (R-AK) is my Rep. and totally intractable. Is there any benefit in calling Representatives from other districts and states? It's not like I'll ever cast a vote for or against them, but I can't stand doing nothing.

@DavidInNashville

That survey does not match what I saw on the ground. The towns that went for Coakley, were the most liberal (I live among them). The people holding signs, want healthcare passed, what we have is good enough (I am one of them). There was a non-trivial male/truck demographics (based on my sampling of drive-by responses) and the people holding signs for Brown, were the usual conservative suspects, not the lefty-lefties.

Newton (in Frank's district, or next to it) went 67% for Coakley, if I recall correctly.

Go fish

bluestatedon:

From a personality standpoint, however, Obama has shown himself to be completely unsuited for the office in the degraded political culture of early 21st century America, and his inability or disinclination to truly lead has proven to be the critical factor in the transition to single-party rule.

Sad to say: You nailed it.

The country needed a reformer with executive skills as opposed to someone utterly and blindly predisposed to consensus building and the follies of bipartisanship. In short: a progressive who knew how to command.

My first choice the last two election cycles was General Wes Clark. A squeaky clean, war-hero from the south who knew how to give orders and hold his troops accountable. Jesus. That was appealing from every angle...

Instead: we tried to make a General out of a senator, and now so totally perfect, there is talk of making General Clark into a senator...

What a fine kettle of rotten democratic fish...

Tuesday's Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election means that Democrats can't send a modified health care bill back to the Senate.

I'm a big fan of Dr. Krugman, but I have to disagree with this. I don't think any modified HCR bill had a snowball's chance in hell of passing the Senate, regardless of who won on Tuesday. Was Joe LIE-berman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, et al, going to go along with the more liberal changes put in by the House? I don't see it, and I don't see how Tuesday's result changes anything.

House, pass the Senate bill, than Senate, add bills through reconciliation.

I was one of those who despised the Nader voters, the "there's no difference between the parties" crowd who got Bush into office. At the same time, this is the moment for Dems -- blame the obstructionist Republicans all you want, we will never be in a better position right now, and if Dems don't go for the inzone and settle for a field goal at the goal line, I write the Dems off completely.

Yes, Republicans are obstructionist -- which is why, if the Dems have learned anything over the ast 15 years, they shouldn't have courted Snowe, given Lieberman his committee assignments, dithered for months and months courting Republicans and watering down this bill until they lost Kennedy's seat due to the appearance of ineptitude, which is well earned.

So, we have 59 seats. If they were Republicans, they'd get rid of the filibuster. If you can't get rid of it with 59, they'd do it before the new Senator is seated. They'd figure out a way to make it majority rule again, and stop negotiating with themselves and cutting deals where we make all the compromises, to get votes that never materialize. They'd realize it's better to have 59 votes than 60 with Lieberman - and if we have 59 now, we might as well have 51 and forget about them.

But they won't. They'll cut and run, they'll give up, they'll blame the GOP for being the GOP, and the Dems will be the Dems, misreading my disatisfaction as a reaction against healthcare, when it's really frustration over giving them a larger and larger majority that the Dems can't use half as effectively to drive the debate and legislation as Republicans can in the minority.

What's the argument? They need 61 votes? 65? Snowe?

We could have had HCR months ago. We could have had it before this election when things looked bad. We could have it tomorrow, but the Dems are no more able to learn than the GOP, and I'm starting to feel like an enabler. Giving them the office again to prevent the GOP only continues us on the long slide back to conservatism and the breathing room to buckle now. For me it's this bill or nothing - I'm done. Pass the Senate bill, or suffer a well-deserved defeat.

You're assuming that everyone shares your underlying premise, i.e., that the Senate version is a good bill. A lot of us disagree. A lot of us think that this is a bad bill. A lot of us believe that this bill was designed, not for the benefit of the American people, but rather, to appease every conservative or industry group that might possibly raise an objection. Consider, in order to pass the Senate version, the House would have to swallow, inter alia: (1) the deal with Big Pharma; (2) the Cornhusker Compromise; (3) anti-choice provisions; (4) a mandate coupled with utterly inadequate subsidies and cost-containment; and (5) a continuation of the insurance industry's exemption from anti-trust laws. Let me repeat: this is a bad bill, and virtually all of its many flaws are a direct result of empowering the most unprincipled opportunists and scoundrels in a dysfunctional Senate, And anyone who thinks this could be amended or improved later on, given the current political climate, is dreaming. The public shares our skepticism. According to the latest polling data, 55% of the electorate thinks that the HCR bill should be changed. Even the President has called for a "scaled back" bill and -- wait for it -- more bipartisanship. Contrary to what you might think, most of the members of the House who dislike this bill are neither fools nor cowards. They are simply unpersuaded that the positives in the Senate version outweigh the negatives. They are convinced, however,that if they pass it, and it blows up, the White house will leave them twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.
KILL. THE. DAMN. BILL.

"we tried to make a General out of a senator,"

As someone who has believed all along that Obama's political skills and instincts have been hugely overrated and that he ascended to the US Senate largely because he was fortunate to face that complete nut Alan Keyes, I think the more accurate take is that "we tried to make a General out of a college professor."

Anybody who says that the benefits of not passing the bill (e.g., the "Cornhusker Compromise" is killed) exceed the benefits of passing the bill (e.g., millions of lives are saved, millions of conditions are treated, and millions of bankruptcies are prevented) is either cold or ignorant.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Steve Benen quoted Krugman: "You can do the right thing and pass the Senate health care bill ... the Senate bill is much, much better than nothing."

Many progressive House Democrats obviously disagree on the merits with Krugman's assertion that the Senate bill is "much, much better than nothing" and that passing it would be "the right thing".

Does Krugman follow up with a substantive discussion of the objections that progressive House Democrats have to the Senate bill?

No, he just accuses them of "wanting to give up".

Steve Benen further quoted Krugman: "... some Democrats want to just give up on the whole thing."

You know, if a Republican or a corporate media talking head made a vague, sweeping generalization like that about what "some Democrats want", without offering any supporting evidence of actual Democrats saying that they "want to just give up", then Steve Benen would shower them with well-deserved derision, sarcasm and contempt. Krugman's comment is every bit as deserving.

It is certainly true that the Democratic Party has failed.

But their failure isn't the unwillingness of the progressive House Democrats to vote for the Senate bill.

No, the Democrats failed when they allowed bought, bribed and paid-for agents of the insurance corporations, like Baucus and Lieberman, to write the Senate bill, to gut it of its most important and vital provisions, removing almost all of the serious "reform" and turning it in to a corporate-welfare bill that requires the American people to guarantee and subsidize the profits of the insurance corporations, in perpetuity, under penalty of law.

For the House Democrats to acquiesce to this shocking, corrupt entrenchment of corporate power against the best interests of the American people by passing the Senate bill would be the true failure.

Look closely, here: according to "sensible liberals", the paid agents of the insurance corporations in the Senate who dictated the contents of "the damn bill", e.g. Lieberman, Baucus et al, are the heroes of this story, and the progressive Democrats in the House who want real reform instead of corporate welfare masquerading as reform, are the villains.

This is as good as it gets with Dems. The question is, does that mean the best the Dems can do is the most progressive piece of legislation in 50 years, or choking on the goal line.

People will forget about HCR if we get Snowe on board to de-stimulate the economy with our renewed deficit focus.

In 2010, I would rather give the American people a reminder of why they voted out the Republicans than the long, slow bleed of Dems passing the GOP agenda as they are called "too liberal" and refusing to negotiate.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Krugman's influence on politics is actually fairly limited, and this column is a good illustration why - it's great in terms of ideology and passion, less so on the details that political people in government actually need to make the case. I'd also point out that Krugman's not actually well versed on the deep details of healthcare reform, which is why he tends to repeat what other "expert" voices say. He's not wading into the details of what's good and bad in the Senate bill, I'd guess, because his point of view isn't really interested in the complexities. Krugman's a partisan, a passionate partisan, and I'm glad we have him... to be passionate. I don't think, though, he's helping at a moment like this by not acknowledging that the Senate bill is not universally accepted as the "better than nothing" solution, even among liberals, never mind all Dems.

Indeed, Krugman even notes Nancy Pelosi's comment that she doesn't have the votes... and then breezes on, informing us that, well, there will be the votes... somehow. If everyone just had some spine. Or something.

I don't mind repeating these basic thoughts, because I think they're crucial to seeing where we actually are. The Senate bill is deeply flawed. The tax provisions in it are problematic. The cost controls in it are minimal at best, and major elements of reform - related to Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, just for starters - are really nowehere to be found in it. The bill, as passed, contains language on abortions and insurance that the House has never taken up, that Stupak says can't pass, and that House women may well find a bridge too far after the Stupak debacle. The bill, as passed, also contains the Nelson Medicaid funding compromise that even Nelson has realized will ruin him, even though federal funding for Medicaid expansion is arguably the best idea anyway. The bottom line is... for a number of reasons - and not really just one blanket "House members are wimping out" excuse - the Senate bill cannot pass the House as is. Reconciliation couldn't solve all the problems in it... and just as pointedly, the reconciliation option is probably a nonstarter anyway, and would just make conducting other Senate business next to impossible.

Krugman refuses to consider any sense of a scaled back reform, saying that it will most certainly make matters worse. Some of that, certainly, is the case. But still. You can figure that out at a table, with rerasonable people, if you try. And if Republicans won't come to that table... well, that's about them, and frankly, at this moment... we need to make it about them, and not us. I think even Krugman knows that. And knowing that, I think, means letting the Senate bill go.

SecularAnimist is a great progressive, but in this case he (or she?) wants us to cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face.

Yes, insurers will benefit from more customers. But the point of reform isn't to fuck insurers over (although that would be a nice side benefit). The point of reform is to give more people access to quality health care (i.e., to reduce suffering and to save lives), and to give the poor and middle class financial stability. The Senate Bill, imperfect as it is, helps to achieve these goals.

PS I do wish people would rethink the reliance on the bad sports analogies of "fourth and goal" or "shoot at the buzzer" and such; they serve as endless reminders of macho, boy-o approaches to politics that are better suited to the rampant sexists of the GOP, and don't really deal in any of the nuances of the complexity of crafting good governmental policy. I get it, politics is like football... except, you know, when it's not.

God I hate fucking asshole liberals almost as much as I hate republicans. The level of outright nonsense and flummery spouted by the so called liberals that comment on this sight is staggering. To the people who say that they won't vote for democrats for whatever reason I say supreme court. If the ruling yesterday doesn't clue you in to what's really going on than well your just as uselessly stupid as the teabaggers.

When a bill stinks (as this one does with it's political bribery all over it) it should be voted down by adults.

Few adults on the left. But that has been the case for a few decades.

"The solution is so goddamn obvious... Pass. The. Damn. Bill."

C'mon Steve, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

"Reconciliation couldn't solve all the problems in [the senate bill]" - weboy

So? Solve the ones you can with reconcilation. Work with the repubs on the one's you can't. If they refuse/obstruct/filibuster, then blame the problems on them.

But please, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The deals that had to be made for the Senate bill, it's imperfections, none of that matters. There's no chance it won't be revisited over the next several years after it passes, so pass the damn bill.

When it's either this bill or nothing for decades, the Senate bill starts looking pretty good.

David and Marko both seem to reflect the same sort of curious logic as Benen: The Senate bill is bad, all admit... but it should be passed, and the problems "dealt with" later. But again all admit the obvious: The Senate can't pass the "deal with problems" bill in normal procedure as well... only budgetary corrections that could (maybe) be made through reconciliation. Thus, all seem to admit, what you wind up with is a problematic piece of legislation, which can't be fixed, now law of the land, and likely to cause all sorts of unintended (and intended) mischief.

Never mind for a second the realities of there not being votes for any of this... step back for a minute and someone, please, without resorting to "Pass the damn bill" or football metaphors... just explain why bad legislation which codifies bad policy, and cannot easily be fixed... represents a good solution to a complex policy problem like healthcare. I get that Dems are mad, and want to see action... but I've yet to hear the "pass the damn bill" crowd deal with what's actually in the bill, just in the vague generalites of "yes, it's got problems," or "it's better than nothing." So, really... show me you understand what the problems are. Tell me how we're going to deal with them (remembering that, from what we've seen, many of the solutions to the most intractable problems cannot, in fact get legislative support). And then, maybe, I'd be persuaded to consider that a deeply flawed bill from the Senate, with some small changes, might be an answer. Right now... what I see - and I'm guessing others do as well - is an urge to "do something" damn the consequences. Tell me, somebody, that you're thinking through the consequences. Because when I do... it says "don't pass the bill."

Which is helpful... because they can't.

"I've yet to hear the "pass the damn bill" crowd deal with what's actually in the bill,..."

Where have you been? We've been screaming from the rooftops about what's actually in the bill for weeks. Go back and look at Benen's archives.

"So, really... show me you understand what the problems are. " - weboy

We know that the excise tax in the senate bill is bad. But a) it is not in force for (I think) a couple years; and b) it can be fixed as a budgetary item in reconciliation (only requires 50% up-or-down votes in both chambers).

And yes, I agree that some issues can't be fixed in reconciliation (such as the Nebraska give-away). But there's no train-wrecks in there that's going into force on Day 1.

This is literally, the only chance we get at reform. The senate bill provides a good working start, then apply the piecemeal approach to that. You get a much better deal.

There. No metaphors. No "4th-and-goal with 1 second on the clock". No "bottom of the ninth with two outs and a full count". No bathwater babies flying out the window.

"There. No metaphors."

Oops, I left a train-wreck in there. Oh well, I tried. I really, really tried. lol

Chris, honestly... I didn't start thinking about healthcare reform yesterday, or last week, or even in August of last year. I've been doing this for quite a while; I've read a lot of information about every aspect of reform. I really do know about the Senate bill, what's in it, and what's not. My question is very specific: can advocates of "pass the damn bill" stop, for a minute, and think about what's in the bill, and what it means for it to become law? What problems, really, do you see? How could they be fixed... especially when, as most "pass the bill" advocates admit... you can't get the necessary fixes passed, even now?

The point of the question is this: all I hear is the vague "this bill has problems." I think it would help, as a matter of gaining support, to admit what those "problems" are... and how they would be fixed. That, it seems to me, is the serious approach to this.

I appreciate Marko for trying... but I think it kind of illustrates the challenge: yes, the obvious two are the excise tax and the Nelson deal. That, it strikes me, is just for starters. What about the rest?

PS Marko - "train wreck" isn't my issue. :)

90% of the "problems" in the Senate bill consist of the misinformation and lies the Republicans and Blue Dogs have spread. Barring a massive publicity campaign by the Democrats (no, I'm not holding my breath), the only way to counteract those lies is to pass the bill, making changes via reconciliation that the process permits. If the bill is the complete POS that the "killers" believe it is, then the Democrats will suffer. And deservedly.
Passing the Senate bill, however (insert derogatory adjective here) it may seem, does something that scares the insurance companies to death: it puts the Federal government firmly on record as being a major participant in the HC/I needs of ALL citizens; not just seniors or children, ALL citizens. That participation can be expanded later, if the voters wish it to be and if they have the chance. There may be a problem, hoever.
Every poster here knows about the obscene amounts already spent by HCI companies to prevent the passage of THIS bill. They haven't stopped their spending and they won't until the bill either passes or is defeated. Consider the recent SCOTUS ruling on corporations and campaign spending. Then ask yourself this: do you honestly think we'll get another chance at (starting) HC/I reform if the Senate bill isn't passed?
Do you really want to risk it?

wow i am a littlt out of mind and just to be a reader is that ok have a happy day.louboutin shoes

Pass the damn bill! Breville BKC700XL