They are doomed if they pass it or not. Jobs and restoring FDRs banking policies would have assured them decades of success but the Dems blew it.

Pass the damn bill! I'm beginning to think that the Brown victory has a silver lining. Obama's running for office again, essentially, and the Dems are coming out of their coma.

If they pass this bill, it will change the landscape. Maybe not immediately, but over time this will be remembered as an important moment in American life. And they'll hand the rightwing the demoralizing defeat that it so richly deserves. Although I don't expect wingers to admit that publicly.

We've gotten lost in the weeds over the last 6 months of healthcare debate. Now something's broken through the Hill bubble. Ironically, it took Ted Kennedy to make it happen, in a completely unexpected manner.

a move that would preserve President Barack Obama's vision of a sweeping health reform plan

If Obama has such a sweeping vision, why won't he get off his ass and use his political capital to pass any damned thing at all? I don't think he or his advisers realize that his presidency is on the line with health care reform (unless they can do something about unemployment, which they also show little interest in). If Democratic majorities in Congress fall over this, the second half of Obama's only term is going to be even more confrontational and wasted as the first. Republicans will make sure of that if they gain victories this November.

Reid couldn't get 51 senators to sign a letter committing to do just this. Does he have them now? Fifty One. Not 60. 51. Is he willing to (or even capable of) twisting the arms necessary to do it?. If 51 senators won't commit in advance to do this, I don't blame the House at all.

Will Obama twist some arms? Or is that beneath him?

If HRC fails, House and Senate leadership can either provide the names of those who weren't on board or get dumped themselves. (A good start would be kicking those two reps that floated the letter advocating extending the Bush tax cuts out of the caucus. They were in marginal districts to start with. Sometimes a leader has to make an example out of someone to be effective.)

We need a march on Congress, with ten of thousands of people demanding that congress pass the bill.

If I were Pelosi, my price for passing this piece of shit would be a hard promise to end the filibuster.

And by the way, all of you who are so convinced that, "If they don't just pass the damn bill" it will be curtains for the Democrats, don't you think that this might give the lady from the house a little leverage when it comes to asking for something from the lords in the Senate? After all it is their necks too. Perhaps this is her best shot to extract something from them. Like a deal to end the filibuster. Because doing that, as near and dear to their pathetic asses as it is, is the only way the legislative agenda is moving forward.

If we don't end the filibuster now we aren't even going to be able to nominate Supreme Court justices that are mildly to the left of center without them being filibustered. Despite the fact that we swallowed loons like Alito and Roberts because we were afraid that if WE filibustered them, they would end the filibuster. See the asymmetry there? As long as that asymmetry exists they will destroy us with it. Just end it. It isn't worth it. It was a cute little custom but it cannot be sustain if we want a democracy.

Perhaps this is her best shot to extract something from them. Like a deal to end the filibuster.

Ending the filibuster takes 67 votes and there is no way in hell you're going to get even 1 Republican vote while Dems have the majority. So that isn't going to happen this year and you're in fantasyland if you think otherwise.

On the other hand, a deal to pass a concurrent improvement bill for health care through reconciliation seems very possible, and Reid/Obama should be lining up the 51 votes now to see how much they can get passed. Instead, Obama is doing nothing until the dust settles and Reid isn't doing publicly either. If they would just say something positive, maybe Pelosi could get enough votes to pass the current Senate bill.

I'm strongly in the camp of "pass the damn bill". I've heard that one of Kennedy's biggest regrets was failing to take the half a loaf that was possible on health care in Nixon's presidency. Get what is possible, and fix it later. It is far easy to fix something that's in place than to build a whole structure from nothing. Yes, single payer is by far the most sensible solution. Yes, "Medicare for everyone" is a simpler vision that should have been easier to sell. Nonetheless, in our reality we have to get something past the Liebermans and Bayhs of the world and other democrats that are stupid, cowardly, in hock to insurance companies, or all three, uninformed voters, insane teabaggers and standardly evil republicans, and corporate-sponsored propaganda (which is about to get far, far worse). So take what we can get, sell it better to the public, and fix its flaws ASAP.

Also, to those complaining about individual mandates: even though mandates sound horrible, A) that's just paying for universal healthcare by a tax under a different name, B) there is help for those who can't afford it, so it functions as a somewhat progressive tax, C) how else are you going to pay for it, while also keeping rates reasonable by not just picking up the costs for people rejected by insurance companies, right when their medical needs are greatest?, and D) a lot of the reality of insanely high hospital prices is because they have to swallow so many unpaid bills, so getting those bills paid and getting uninsured people out of emergency rooms and into much cheaper standard practice should ease medical costs.

'Nevertheless, the current Senate rules state that 67 votes are required for future rule changes.[12] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option, also called the "constitutional option" for political reasons and because of its roots in constitutional majoritarianism.'

The nuclear option should be looked at as a deterrent. You hope that the other side blinks. But if they don't. So be it. The filibuster is a tradition that was designed to protect minority rights. You would think that The White Peoples Party would think long and hard about that before giving up on it.

I'm with Shalimar. The Democratic leader who really failed here is President Obama. His number one priority -- day in and day out -- is promoting himself. He been campaigning all year for himself. If he had spent half the time that he's wasted making pretty speeches in the Oval Office coordinating healthcare reform, the process wouldn't have spun out of control, we wouldn't have two separately written bills, we wouldn't have a Senate bill that's written by big business, the reconciliation process process would be straight forward, the whole thing would have been done months ago, and the result would be something that Democrats could be proud of.

Shortly after Brown's election, he does what he's been doing all year: he leaves town to make a speech and leaves the heavy lifting to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. He's got the sweeping vision, but unless he's willing to buckle down and focus on the nuts and bolts, nothing is doing to get done.

You want to get healthcare reform passed? A few thousand people need to light a fire under Obama. Call the White House, and tell them that he needs to get work. If not, the Democratic nominee in 2012 is going to be Hillary Clinton.

Pass what bill? The Senate one that forces people to buy insurance from an unregulated industry? In case you've had your head in the sand, Scott Brown got elected in a liberal state because the Dem was for this crappy bill. If you think anyone in the Senate is gonna grow a pair and "fix" this later you are sadly mistaken. The senate and the white house can barely stomach to take this on now. What makes you think they will later on.

Each day that passes, evidence mounts that people just don't want this, and these dispatches sound more and more delusional. As a moderate independent, I watch this fiasco with a profound sense of disbelief that progressives are so completely out-of-touch. They seem to be trapped in an echo-chamber where it is believable that people will learn to appreciate this monstrosity of a bill -- you know, once it has passed.

Imagine Bush had used this strategy to pass Social Security reform.

For the record, ending the filibuster is a silly pipe dream; I can't believe people discuss it seriously at this contentious point in our political climate. It adds fuel to the fire that progressives are living in a separate reality from the rest of us. And the comment that it would imperil future SCOTUS nominees sympathetic to the progressive worldview is absolutely correct.

At this point it seems vividly clear that the major obstacle in the way of health care reform is NOT the results in Massachusetts and NOT overall Democratic party weakness -- it is the House's mistrust of both the Senate and the White House that they will keep their end of a bargain. And who can blame them? Pelosi and the House did what they had to do, only to have the Senate pass a bill that would arguably make things worse without vital changes -- and when the chips were down and the White House needed to take a side, they sided with Joe Lieberman and attacked Howard Dean.

It's brutal, but it's totally understandable. Politics is supposed to be about give and take, not have one side show guts and then be demanded to give and give and give. Especially for a side that is more incompetent and gutless.

The only way -- the ONLY way -- there's a prayer is for Obama to forcefully tell the Senate to Cheney themselves and do what the House is demanding (which is reasonable and will make HCR better). Absent of that, even I wonder if we should "pass. the. damn. bill."

Scott is right. You mindless partisans can only think about passing ANY BILL so your party can have a "victory." But the bill is a huge giveaway to the private insurance industry. It's likely to make things worse for the average American, not better. How is that supposed to help the Democrats politically?

The American people are being reamed from both ends, by corporations and government, by both parties, by every institution in this country.

I can see all the items listed as getting through reconciliation except the state exchanges->national exchange. I'm not sure that fits the Byrd amendment of budget related items.

I hope they can do it, it's clearly best, but I hope that if they can't do it, they still Pass The Damn Bill!!

Note that they don't have to pass the Senate bill first - they can vote on that last but the President has to sign it first. This would mean that the House could refuse to pass the Senate bill until all the reconciliation bills are done - meaning the nimrods in the House could refuse to pass the Senate bill if they don't get everything, including the national exchange.

I know this is being picky, but my reading is that passing a bill through reconciliation would only require 50 votes, not 51. In the event of a tie, the VP can pass the tie-breaking vote and ensure passage even without a majority in the Senate.

"Get what is possible"....and make it better later.

OK. I give you No Child Left Behind

Take it from there...

Can I get an amen! Pass the damn bill!!!

On the same note, who would everyone place on the list of guaranteed problem votes in the Senate?

Names I am sure would oppose any move through reconciliation:

Damn Certain Nos:

Landrieu
Bayh
Nelson
Lieberman

Probable Nos:
Lincoln
Pryor

Possible Nos:
Hagan
Dorgan
Conrad (depends on scoring)

Very Soft Yes:
Hagan
McCaskill
Begich
Johnson

I'm just spitballing on these so feel free to tell me where I am wrong and/or just forgetting someone.

I'm also really worried about a few that should be certain but have been a problem lately. (Feinstein)

Either pass the bill or spend eternity in political hell thinking "I could have actually DONE something instead of sitting here locked in my congressional bathroom playing with myself."

If not now, then no serious American politician will visit the issue in a generation. And that Klan senator from South Carolina will have gotten the Obama "Waterloo" that he's slavered about for so long.

Seldom are political choices ever so stark and un-nuanced at the macro level.

"There is an obvious course that would deliver an extraordinary victory -- the House passes the Senate bill, then approves changes through reconciliation -- but fear is driving reluctance."

The idea that dems will pass the senate bill and then come back to amend it is nonsense. If they pass the bill they will run away from the issue so fast we'll have to revisit the idea that matter can't break the light barrier.

The choices are:
A) do nothing
B) pass the senate bill and nothing else
C) scrap the senate bill and proceed with incremental progress while also addressing other issues

C is by far the best of the remaining options. A is the next best, as sad as that is to say. B is completely unacceptable since it's basically a corporate gang rape of the citizens of this nation in exchange for little or no benefit.

While they are at it, they should include a public option or Medicare buy-in. Fuck it, if you only need 50 Senate votes, go for broke!

On the same note, who would everyone place on the list of guaranteed problem votes in the Senate?

I dearly would like to know this, also. I'm thinking of Webb as a Probable No. Move McCaskill up a notch to Possible No. And yes, Feinstein should be on that list somewhere.

OK, debate over. Sven's analysis is matched by reality:

There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said.

“The Senate moderates’ viewpoint is, ‘We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.

So much for that.

Not that that's going to stop Benen et al claiming the Senate Bill should be passed regardless. The bill is NEVER going to be fixed. Any Congressman who votes for this knowing what it is and that there's no hope of ever changing it would be criminally irresponsible.

The Politico article seems very cautious and timid, with everyone sort of tamping down the notion that there's anything near a successful agreement. I suspect that's because this remains a very longshot struggle to work out a deal with too many moving parts to stick. Nothing yet convinces me that - even with a reconciliation deal - the House has the votes to pass the Senate bill. That's a much more basic problem about members' fears going into midterms, and probably can't be solved.

Second, the list of Senators above deals, I think, only with the question of whether the healthcare items could pass in reconciliation. I'd point out that there are a number of Seators, including Byrd, who oppose this use of reconciliation on principle, and may be yet another hurdle to using that process.

I said I would stop, but ....

Another perspective is the cloy and deceptive statements of Snowe [lets go slowe]. IF she really wanted to move this country ahead, instead of suck up to the whoremonger republicans, imagine how much juice she would have now if she went to Harry and Nancy and the other 360 demo lemmings, and said: "Here are my demands". Hell if she brought her vote and Collins, maybe, who knows? maybe there might be a bill? SO the R's would get pissed. WHo cares, in her case? She can get re-elected until after she dies; and so the R's get pissed? So what? No coffee breaks to talk about whores with Vitter? No breakfasts with Ensign about how to cheat on your wife while dicking your best friends wife? Or how to skirt FBI and DOJ investigations? No tete a tete with Robert {Pork us up!] Bennett about how to fleece the public coffers? No more caucuses with John [brought to you by ExxonMobil] Cornyn ?

Man. imagine the POWER she would have, being an idependant repbublican, hanging with Bernie Sanders and Joe Lie berman.

Oh, never mind.

What is it about so many people here that keeps them from understanding that the mandate is absolute suicide? Pass the damn bill? No way in hell!

'For the record, ending the filibuster is a silly pipe dream; I can't believe people discuss it seriously at this contentious point in our political climate. It adds fuel to the fire that progressives are living in a separate reality from the rest of us. And the comment that it would imperil future SCOTUS nominees sympathetic to the progressive worldview is absolutely correct.'

Nonsense. It was the threat of ending the filibuster that prevented the routine use of the filibuster during the Bush years. It is the absence of that threat, a credible threat that enables its routine use, an historical anomoly today.

If one side is willing to end it and the other isn't you have created an asymmetry which guarrentees a right wing supreme court, and a completely dysfunctional Congress whenever Democrats have power. Not so when Republicans are in power. Don't you see that? It is elemental. We can't prevent them from using this approach so we are going to have to use it ourselves.

MAD. That is the only thing that will restore a balance of power and sanity to the Senate. Again, perhaps a credible threat will bring the Republicans to their senses. But if not, sacrificing the filibuster to regain the basic concept of majority rule would be the lesser of two evils.

When the Republicans developed their theory of 'the constitutional option', it was based on a pretty thin record of filibuster abuse. It was rather anticipatory. They knew that they had a contentious agenda that they wanted to push through and that the filibuster was its greatest threat. It was pre-emptive.

Now, however, they have conveniently supplied us with an entire year of graphic data demonstrating undeniable filibuster abuse. They have supplied real world data to back up all the rhetoric that they deployed during the arguments they were making back then. We need only turn them back on them. Use them word for word. Hammer them. Up or down vote. Majority rule. Democracy. All of the slogans designed to appeal to low information voters. The president deserves to have his agenda voted on etc. This is about saving our democracy. My guess is that they will fold. That is, just like the democrats, they will back down from the routine use of the filibuster rather than risk losing it. But if not...

You have to be insane to think you can force this bill through reconciliation when Scott Brown just got elected because he opposes it, and when all the polls show the American people don't want it. This is a democracy, you have to have the support of the voters, you cant just shove stuff down peoples throats - especially something as big as this. I think the fallout from doing that would be a landslide in the midterms of historical proportions. I think even I would vote for the Republican. People want a bipartisan bill. Thats why they elected Obama, they thought he would get consensus and at least some Republican votes. They should pass stuff that a large majority of congress of both parties can agree on.

I really think this State of the Union may be Obama's only chance to save his presidency. He has to stand up to the left of his party NOW and call for an incremental, moderate approach to health care. That would be showing leadership and strength. His problem is not seeming weak to terrorists, its seeming weak to the left of his own party. I know thats what the Whitehouse wants, so he should just say so.

"I can see all the items listed as getting through reconciliation except the state exchanges->national exchange. I'm not sure that fits the Byrd amendment of budget related items." MichMan @ 10:59 AM.

Considering the impact a national exchange versus state exchanges would have on costs, they should be able to do it.

Shane_c @ 4:03 PM:

Let me see: references to "forcing" a bill through via reconciliation, threat to vote Republican, misuse of bipartisan, standing up to the "left". Yup, covered 'em all. Now, go collect your check.

Liberals will ultimately have to cave to the Senate bill but were I them I'd hold out for some promises from the President. It seems to me if he isn't going to lead on the issue then tell him you'll vote for his crap bill if he does something for you. Pull him out of the White House and out into the open. If one dolt Senator from Nebraska can get a deal for his vote a bloc of liberal representatives ought to be able to do a little better.

Senate Dems are too fearful to pass anything. That's the price we are paying for accommodating progressives, moderates and centrists in the party. What's the use of having a majority if you can't use it? Come Novemember, independents--who put BO into the WH and increased Dem majorities--will conclude Dems cannot govern and will vote Rep by default. What a sad ending.

Forget about the loss of a filibuster-proof Senate. President Reagan, whom BO himself called a "transformational president," had his way with a solidly Dem Congress for eight years. That's called leadership. Why can't BO do the same?

I would like a better bill and I think Obama has made some mistakes without which a bill might already have been passed, although reading some comments and listening to what some Dem reps say I am not so sure. It appears to me now that the Senate bill plus reconciliation option is largely being held hostage to the opposition of some House members to the individual mandate without a public option, which would have still been a problem if the Senate bill had passed sooner because the bill simply is not possible without it. This continuing horror over the individual mandate I simply do not understand. First of all, you have to give healthy people an incentive to join the market or you cannot get rid of the exception for pre-existing conditions without raising premiums to unaffordable levels and actually creating more uninsured persons. Second it is not true that anyone has to buy private insurance. You have a choice to not buy insurance and pay the tax instead. The tax is much smaller and insures that when you do choose to buy insurance, even if you have waited to do so until you have a cancer diagnosis, you will have the right to purchase full coverage insurance at the same rate as a healthy person of your age. That is a great deal and a vast improvement on the current system. Thirdly, in the interest of full disclosure I am a 55 year old uninsured person whose ability to purchase insurance will be vastly enhanced by passage of the Senate bill. Would I like to have been able to buy into Medicare-yes I would and i wont say what I think of the Lieberman because it wouldnt be civil-but I am pefectly content to buy affordable private insurance and I think most of the uninsured are as well. Once this bill is passed, most improvements in the future can be passed by budget reconciliation and so will only require 50 senate votes. We can continue fighting for a public option or medicare buy-in in the future, but lets get the basic bill passed now because that really is the only alternative for comprehensive reform. Furthermore, it is not just health care that is at stake. It is the entire ability of the Dems to show they can govern. The whole point of the GOP is to prevent this from happening and convince the American people that Dems cant govern so they might as well vote for the GOP. The GOP's behavior shows that it understands what Dems appear not to understand. Passage of this bill will in the end be popular. It will help Dems in the future and that is why we should have the votes to make it better in the future. PASS THE DAMN BILL.

Scott: "In case you've had your head in the sand, Scott Brown got elected in a liberal state because the Dem was for this crappy bill."

That's not necessarily true. First, "this crappy bill" is essentially what they already have in Massachusetts, and what they have there is popular there. It could be that since they already have it, they had no incentive to help the rest of the nation.

Also, Brown got elected for a lot of reasons. People are angry. The economy is bad. He drives a truck, and his opponent ran a lousy campaign. Wanna bet that he'd have won in a regular election against a competent candidate in a better economic climate?

Brown's election was hardly a referendum on the Senate bill. Plus, as is pointed out in the article, some of the "crap" can be dealt with through reconciliation if the votes are there in the Senate.

Huh? Why are you exhorting them to pass something that we do not want or need?!?

Reagan *was* a "transformational president." You can't look at American political history in the 20th century and come to another conclusion just because you don't like Reagan (which I don't either).

The question is what he meant by "transformational." I'm not a big fan of Obama's these days, but I've always felt that this particular criticism is just asinine.

Also, anything that ends the insurance companies' ability to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions is a good thing. Millions of people will benefit just from that.

Take the corruption out of the 2000 page bill and make it a two page bill people can trust.