Why illuminate when we can obfuscate?

That is the tactic of the HCR destroyers.

Yes.

The Dems have allowed the GOP to dominate this entire debate and have given them ample time to do so. It is their own fault.

JC is right: if there's one thing politicians are supposed to do, it's communicate. And quite apart from their failure to communicate among themselves, they have failed to communicate with their constituents and the larger public.

I'm not saying they need to goose-step in unison -- then they'd be Republicans -- but this is a pretty basic requirement. If they can't even do that, what are they being paid a salary for?

While we wallow in the ontological failure of the Dims to sustain a coherent vision of any sort that would involve efficient governance (and the Repugnants' ideological nihilism, by which their governance stratagems produce disaster after disaster for the vast majority of the inhabitants of country and globe) it is nice to know that -- had we a slightly more intelligent and less infantalized public discourse (Thank you, Corporate media) -- there might have been some pressure on these pricks in Washington to actually govern -- and sustain the common good, if things were different.

But to paraphrase the last great philosopher of western civilization, "You have to live in the society that you have, not the one you wish you had."

We are all Don Rumsfeld now... and doomed.

I have a friend whose parents voted for Scott Brown in part because they were worried about health reform taking away medicare. (They also thought that Coakly was an elitist snob.)

I told her that was just plain ignorant. She pointed out that most Americans don't read details -- they just hear what's on TV and look at headlines and that it's the Democrats' responsibility, not the republicans, not the media's, to make sure their message gets out.

THe democrats have done a terrible job on this. It's their fault they allowed the republicans to shout louder. People voted for a democratic president in part because they wanted health care reform. It's his responsiblity to make sure they know what that entails.

I think Obama is doing a far better job on most things than he's given credit for. What he's done absolutely horribly -- to my great surprise, given the extreme talent for this displayed during the campaign -- is in advertising. He's got a history of good self-advertising. What happened here????

And they need to stop whining. That's all they've been doing for months now -- whine whine whine that people are listening to the republicans. And insulting people by saying they're stupid for doing so. Republicans are smart -- they fight for power and they use what's effective. They don't whine about people not voting for them because they're too stupid and ignorant-- they go out and fight to get them to listen. People respect strength.

If the Dems don't act within a week, they will prove themselves no better than Studebaker Hawk, in his efforts to reign in America's problem mountain! -Kevo

Yes, once again, this AM, on MSNBC, Pat B was chortling over the MA electorate voting down "Obamacare", whatever, that is supposed to be.

I wish we had "Obamacare", if it meant Single Payer. However, never allow your opposition to frame the argument in the first place. For some strange reason, 1600 and the DNC thought we could only have 11 players on the field at the same time as the RepuGs. Attention 1600, this is not a stupid game you are trying to play. This has been war, not football. That is why the great cartoon on Friday by Tom Toles is so apt.

Just to belabor the obvious, there is no way the public can be expected to learn or care what is actually in the bill until there actually IS a bill.

No wonder the non political junkie public 'hates HCR,' when all they know about HCR is that Congress keeps wrangling about it without any results.

the problem is that this process of "education" relies on facts not in evidence. The CBO scoring for instance assumes that the government actually polices the insurance companies to keep them from simply jacking up prices. However it's incredibly unlikely that anything of the kind will occur. That completely destroys the idea of any deficit reduction because the combination of a mandate + subsidies and no cost control gives the insurance companies a blank check to raid the treasury.

But of course they wouldn't do something like that. I mean it's not like they';ve actively let people die instead of spending money...

Oh. Yeah.

The difference between the people who are cheerleaders and the people who want to kill the bill is the former group apparently believe that saying something makes it true. There are no more drugs because we outlawed them. No more poverty because we declared "war" on it. Terrorism? Thing of the past.

The rest of us realize that without a way to force the issue simply calling something illegal, like say recission, does nothing except play to the rubes. (Hello, rubes!)

What E. and al-Fubar said. I understand Obama wanting to keep an arm's length from negotiations, and there was, last summer, some rationale to seeking Snowe's support--she seemed a more logical vote than Lieberman's back then. But those arguments are no longer sustainable. There is a bill, the Senate bill, that can be fixed. Obama needs to get behind it, get out and sell its good points, and start working the liberals (yes, I know they're not chess pieces, but the rationale for Rahm is that he's supposed to be able to deal with Congress).

Pass. The Damn. Bill.

The problem is probably due to too many lawmakers being lawyers.

We need savvy, geeky and weborific folks to be our legislators.

The Dems spent way too much time crafting a bill while the Repugs we're crafting soundbites to chop the noble efforts of the democrats into lumps of indigestible bits of carrion.

Tis' a gift to be simple. How on earth did the democrats think a complex healthcare reform bill was going to be swallowed by the masses?

It's all about being visceral, going for the gut versus the brain.

I'd say it's the democrats who have been punched in the gut over this effort.

The way forward?

Not sure.

Maybe a new breed of democratic speech writers, savvy at being concise and to the point, capable of dismantling the noise machine of the sound-biters.

We herald intelligenct discourse but then we forget how un-intelligent most folks are.

As to those chess pieces, how often have posters at Huffpo referred to Obama and Rahm as three dimensional chess players concerning HCR? In chess, there is a term from the Austrian dialect which is Patzer. It derives from the Austrian "Patzen" which means "to bungle" and refers to a mediocre chess player. So, has Obama become our Patzer-in-Chief?

I HOPE that Obama's near silence now is because he is letting the House Dems dangle out the helicopter door for a good long look down. Maybe it will concentrate their minds.

The "right wing"-- meaning commmentators, Teabaggers, and (unfortunately, essentially all) Republicans -- have become an authoritarian-oriented movement telling one big lie after another. Many Americans for decades have wondered "how could a European Democracy like Germany in the 1920's and 30's supported an extremely authoritarian government whose big lie's were believed by a large percentage (maybe even a majority) of the voting public.

If you didn't know the answer before 2010, now you do. Yes, it can happen here--- or anywhere, given appropriate "leaders" and events like strong authoritarian leaders, weak and constantly compromising opposition, and long-lasting economic hardship.

All this reinforces in the abstract the point, widely recognized by cogent observers: the Right depends on ignorance and confusion to further its ideals. That is quite a commentary, that a movement needs to not be understood in order to be successful.

Steve, this is disingenuous. Many of us were arguing this exact point for months even as you relentlessly defended the President's airy non-statements on reform and also endlessly cheerleaded the administration's fragile 60-vote strategy while we were all pushing for a stronger bill through reconciliation. In other words, like Klein and Yglesias, you've been part of the problem. Time to man up and apologize for what was clearly the wrong way to go.

So where is your in-depth series on what's in the bill, Steve?

Or the links to other blogs/sites that have done this?

There's a little to like in this bill & a lot to dislike - which is why people like Howard Dean & Bernie Sanders oppose it.

The best you've been able to offer is "'Pass the Damn Bill' & we'll fix it later".

That is not governance - that's politics, & bad politics to boot.

Pass the bill and there will be a thousand stories about what is in the bill. Don't pass the bill and there will be a thousand stories about how they screwed up. Pick one.

THe democrats have done a terrible job on this. It's their fault they allowed the republicans to shout louder.

I suppose, but Democrats face the problem of explaining a complex and integrated bill (since it tries to fix a complex & integrated problem) while Republicans yell one liners to their base. Most of the time their messaging isn't even as long as a line, just a word or two: death panel, Nazi, socialism, take over, Nazi, deficit, economy, medicare, Nazi....

And while democrats are seriously churning out science and statistical based policy decisions, the republicans are busy busing "activists" around the country to scream and shout in front of news cameras. And in that scenario, who is going to get the attention of the media I suppose?

Now all this isn't an excuse, just an objective lesson. Even though Obama didn't campaign on single payer, it would have been a lot easier to explain and sell than the hodgepodge we have now. If this dies, god forbid, I say start-over by targeting the healthcare insurers directly. Keep it simple. Run on something popular like a medicare buy-in, or sell the public that we were better off pre 70's before for-profit health insurance was allowed to screw us over. Mandate a national non-profit. Kill the for-profits first, and universal care could come later with much less opposition.

As one commenter already noted, the Dems have done a horrible job selling health-care reform. They have failed to cut through the noise created by the GOP and communicate to voters how health-care reform will improve their lives.

Another issue which most people seem to overlook, both in terms of health-care reform and other policy issues, is how undereducated the voting public truly is.

We live in a country where 15% of the adult population has not even graduated from high school, and roughly 70% of the adult population does not have a college degree. While that does not mean that these people are stupid, is does mean that most of them have difficulty understanding both the complexity of policy details as well as how the government actually functions.

If the Dems are to successfully sell healthcare, they need to make their arguments simple and easy to understand. For example, "You may not like the idea of a government bureaucrat making decisions about your health-care, but you probably like the idea of an insurance-company that's trying to profit off your misery making decisions about your health-care even less". A lot of anti-government types mught think twice about opposing health-care reform when they realize who is currently making decisions about their health care.

>"MORE INFORMATION MEANS MORE SUPPORT...."

WAIT! OUR SUPREME COURT HAS FIXED THAT!

A link that summarizes the key differences between the House and the Senate bills on Health Care http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6040R120100105

The bird's eye view of the differences aren't worth falling on the proverbial sword. Sometimes I find myself wondering what House members aren't getting the grease they were promised in the House Bill if the Senate Bill goes through.

How can you effectively sell a HCR bill that still doesn't exist? Everything is still provisional. That's a tough sell. You can only explain individual parts that may or may not be in the final bill.

but SCOTUS just said that insurance companies, hospitals, and Medical Industrial Complex should have free reign to spend their trillions (1/3 of GDP) on misinforming the public.

Democracy can not exist without a reasonably well informed electorate. Something the US hasn't had since the "reagan revolution" with one of its main covenants being the purposeful misinformation of the electorate.

The permitted lies and dissembling are exactly why we don't have universal healthcare like every other civilized nation has. And the scum sucking republican majority on SCOTUS just opened the floodgates to further confusing the electorate.

"Over the summer, in the middle of the right-wing freak-out, a NBC/WSJ poll found that 36% of Americans approved of the plan. When the plan was actually described, support jumped to 53%."

That was the HOUSE bill.

The House bill would still be popular if passed. The Senate bill will NEVER be popular.

Removal of the Public Option, replacing the surtax on millionaires with a tax on the Middle-class, the pushing out of the effective date of the ban on preexisting conditions to 2014, and the addition of all the bribes and backdoor deals sealed it.

Another issue which most people seem to overlook, both in terms of health-care reform and other policy issues, is how undereducated the voting public truly is.

I suppose. But progressives often make such blanket statements like the public is uneducated or stupid, which are, I think, a bit simplistic. Each side has its low-info voters and each side has its intelligent ones, but what makes republicans unique, regardless of education or intellect, is their willingness to swallow blatant propaganda. They listen to Limbaugh all afternoon and then the Beck show. They invite the one sided arguments and twisted logic because of some primal need to be right or comforted. Many are otherwise intelligent people, but for some reason can't see these programs for what they are. Any truth loving person would understand that a show in which for eight years Bush could do little wrong and was considered basically "good", and for one year Obama can't do anything right and is considered basically "evil" is peddling nothing but horse shit.

Not a matter of intelligence, the wingers have some of that. Not a matter of information, the wingers have plenty of that. It's commonsense they lack. The ability to say, hey, think tanks backed by oil companies are funding "scientists" that "doubt" global warming is man made is a conflict of interest. Or that "damaging" scientific emails leaked two weeks before a major climate summit is an awfully suspicious coincidence. Their brains are apparently wired for kool-aid.

How can you effectively sell a HCR bill that still doesn't exist? Everything is still provisional.

how about a simple table of information with 3 columns:

the first, simple single sentence identification of a provision in either the house or senate version of the bill.

Column 2 check marks if the provision is in the house bill. You could even put "HOUSE" as a column header

Column 3 check marks if its in the senate bill. Again, a column header: "SENATE"

too complicated?

I looked at the poll results and here's a not-so-surprising couple of findings -- 41% of the opponents were more likely to support it when the increased tax on the wealthy was explained; while 21% of supporters were less likely to support it when the Cadillac-plan surcharge was explained. And we all know which bag-of-crap version is in the Senate's bill. If 51 Dems in the Senate won't commit to making the changes to fix its bill (and so far they won't), the House shouldn't pass the Senate's version.

The stakes here are not just health care, the millions of suffering Americans, the anxiety that we all feel about getting good health care, but the future of our Republic. If the Republicans regain the WH in 2012 and actual control of the Senate and/or House (versus control via filibuster), there won't be much left of the USA by 2016, given the mess created from 2000-2008. So what must Democrats do now to prevent that?

If Democrats just wimp out and abandon HCR, they will certainly lose in 2010 and 2012. The Republican right-wing will be triumphalist, the Democratic base demoralized. Fox news, given the SCOTUS decision, will pull out all stops to misinform, deceive, confuse, terrify, demonize. Abandoning HCR will not make Americans feel better about the Democrats and their leaders, it will just feed the conservative narrative, and it will not lead to electoral victories.

OTOH, if Democrats pass HCR--defend it, explain it--there is a chance that sane Americans will come to appreciate the improvement over the mess we have now.

So Democrats may or may not be damned if they pass it; they certainly will be damned if they don't. How is there any hesitation?

When I started writing this, I was trying to talk about courage, and the courage to do what is right despite opposition, using basic Kohlberg post-conventional reasoning. High-minded stuff. Then I realized that courage has nothing to do with it. It's pure self-interest to pass the.damn.bill.

The bill is not going to be "fixed". This is a lie that some Democrats apparently like to tell themselves in order to pretend that this crap bill is worth passing. There is not going to be any significant "fix". Those in the "Pass. The. Damn. Bill." camp should at least be honest enough to defend the Senate bill as it is and not a invent a bunch of magic ponies that will be tacked on later.

I would suggest that Democrats calm the fuck down for a second. (I suggest breathing slowly into a paper bag.)

It is simply untrue that Democrats need to pass the Senate bill or have HCR be lost for 25 years. That is a lie that we are being told in order to ram through a bill that is little more than a windfall to industry.

Here's the deal. We are not negotiating with Snowe. We are not negotiating with Collins. We are not negotiating with Lieberman. All of those Senators take their leads from the lobbyists. If the lobbyists want to cut a deal, the votes will materialize.

If Obama, Reid, and Pelosi want to get this thing done, then I would suggest that they do the following: Go to the insurance industry. Tell them, "You have two choices. Either you find a way to convince Snowe or Collins (or, hell, Brown) to vote for something approaching the House bill or, in the next Senate, we are going to change the filibuster rule so that you might be able to delay an up or down vote, but you wont be able to stop it. That bill will be considerably less favorable to the insurance industry. We won't b constrained by the rules of reconciliation. The bill will have a VERY robust public option. That is popular with the public and we will have 50 votes, no problem."

My prediction: A vote from Maine would materialize tout suite.

Practically speaking, what % of the 30 million will not be able to afford to use their insurance?
This is a question; try to treat it as such.

I suggest everyone clear your calendars and get your cell phones charged up. The coach has called a time out; Reid, Pelosi and Obama are in consultation over the legislative language and strategy; 218 votes needed in the house for a package of reconciliation eligible amendments; 218 votes needed for the Senate bill in the House; 51 votes needed in the Senate for the reconciliation eligible amendsment. Cue the State of the Union Address to call the play. Cue the OFA calls to the House and Senate, PASS.THE.BILLS. Cue the pissing and moaning from Lieberman, Nelson, Landreiu, Bayh and Snowe, but they don't matter anymore.

The whole year has been building toward this moment.

Enjoy the weekend.

To the "Pass.The.Damn.Bill" folks:

I think y'all are actually doing a pretty good job with "messaging" directed towards right wingers who mistakenly believe that the Senate bill creates death panels, is a "radical socialist takeover of health care", and other corporate-scripted, Limbaugh-bellowed BS.

I think you are not doing such a good job with "messaging" directed towards progressives, who correctly understand that far from being comparable to the creation of Social Security and Medicare which established major public-run programs, the Senate bill eliminates any possibility of universal, nonprofit health insurance under open, accountable, efficient public administration -- i.e. single-payer, or a public option, or a major expansion of Medicare. Instead it entrenches the wealth and power of the for-profit insurance corporations, requiring every single American to guarantee and subsidize their obscene profits in perpetuity; in return for very modest (and quite possibly ineffective) regulation of the insurance corporations' most heinous practices.

Progressives have real, legitimate reasons to believe that the Senate bill -- which was essentially dictated by the insurance corporations' bought-and-paid-for agents in the Senate -- is not a step in the right direction which (maybe) could be subsequently incrementally improved, but is a step in the wrong direction.

Indeed, it often seems that the messaging towards Tea-Baggers and Ditto-Heads is more reasoned and respectfully persuasive than the messaging towards progressives.

To the Tea-Baggers and Ditto-Heads, the message is "Look here folks, you are just misinformed about what's in the bill -- look here, this is what is actually in it".

To progressives, the message seems to be "FOOLS! COWARDS! TRAITORS!"

The bill is not going to be "fixed". This is a lie that some Democrats apparently like to tell themselves in order to pretend that this crap bill is worth passing. There is not going to be any significant "fix". Those in the "Pass. The. Damn. Bill." camp should at least be honest enough to defend the Senate bill as it is and not a invent a bunch of magic ponies that will be tacked on later....

It is simply untrue that Democrats need to pass the Senate bill or have HCR be lost for 25 years. That is a lie that we are being told in order to ram through a bill that is little more than a windfall to industry".

Now that's how to communicate.

You on the other hand, Benen, have a pronounced tendency to cite grashopper-in-the-ears polling data, and pronounce if only folks comprehended the cricket's song they'd begin to see things your way.

Both House and Senate bills stop the pre-existing condition scam, right? Both the House and Senate bills stop the scam of dropping coverage when you get sick, right? If that is true, then it's worth passing it to stop the misery of so many Americans that is caused by this.

Ditto on the problem of Democrats in general and Obama in particular re. messaging. Obama needs to discover the value of short sentences.

PTate in MN wrote: "If Democrats just wimp out and abandon HCR, they will certainly lose in 2010 and 2012."

It's too late -- the Senate Democrats already "wimped out" and abandoned health care reform, by gutting their legislation of all the most crucial, fundamental reforms and turning it into corporate welfare for the insurance corporations.

This is what I mean about the messaging to progressives:

Single-payer is off the table, but you have to support the bill anyway. Why? Well, it will have a public option.

Sorry, the public option is off the table, too. But you have to support the bill anyway. Why? Well, it will expand Medicare eligibility to age 55.

Sorry, expansion of Medicare is off the table. But you have to support the bill anyway. Why? Well, because it will require all Americans to guarantee and subsidize the profits of the for-profit insurance corporations whose bought-and-paid-for pet Senators dictated the bill, in return for which we will get some relatively minor, hopefully effective, regulation of the insurance industry's worst abuses.

And above all, you have to support the bill because otherwise the Democratic Party -- which squandered the opportunity for real, historic, reform that would have at least established the basis for building a universal, nonprofit health insurance system under open, accountable, efficient public administration and instead gave us a corporate welfare bill that elevates the profits of the insurance corporations above the vital interests of the American people -- may suffer in this year's elections.

how about a simple table of information with 3 columns:

You missed the point. That's not selling the bill. That's DESCRIBING the two options that you haven't made up your mind about, yet.

I'm trying to envision just how Obama or congressional leaders can go out to the public and say,"Here's our product, and here's why you should buy it." Right now we've got, "Well, our product isn't quite done yet, and we're really not sure just exactly what is going to be in it, but you should buy it"

That's what makes it a hard sell.

I want to see this thing sold. I'm just trying to figure out how to sell a "thing" to a doubtful or misinformed person when you don't know what that "thing" is, yet. Looking for suggestions.

http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2010/01/are-you-into-the-easy-way-out.html
I have to say, I agree with Thers. Yes--this needs to get passed, and the only way to do that it for the House to pass the Senate version and fix the rest through reconciliation.

But if it's done *right now*--it looks like a panic move by the Democrats. So... why not wait to let Brown be seated? It doesn't affect the above plan. Get the deal for reconciliation, pass the bloody thing *with* Brown in the Senate. You still only need 51 votes for reconciliation.

Gee, just imagine if Obama had ever decided to talk about the bill. Oh wait, that would be called leadership.

"...in return for which we will get some relatively minor, hopefully effective, regulation of the insurance industry's worst abuses."

I WISH we could be hopeful about the regulation but so far there's been nothing to suggest they are anything but lip service. These regulations will require hundreds of lawyers that focus on nothing but the insurance companies. They will require massive increases in the number of courts available to hear the huge flood of cases. By one insurance industry CEO's admission in government testimony recission alone affects .5% of their customers. That's going to be hundreds of thousands of cases.

Every day the ins cos delay payment means they make interest off the money they would havelost as well as being one day closer to a business friendly administration that will fire all those lawyers tasked with enforcement or reassign them to prosecuting Earth First!-ers.

The senate bill is going to be as effective at ending recission as the war on drugs has been at stopping the traffic of narcotics.

So much stupidity, so little time...

The present Senate bill needed 60 votes to be sent to the House; it got exactly that. If the House doessn't agree with everything in it and passes its' own bill, then the two bills go to conference. THAT bill still requires 60 votes in the Senate to get to floor where it can be voted up or down. Paging Leiberman...
One poster asked for a defense of the Senate bill. Here it is: As disappointing as it is, it puts the Federal government as a major participant in the HC/I needs of ALL citizens for the very first time. Not just HC/I for seniors or children, but for EVERYONE. It certainly isn't what I hoped for and want, but it will do for a start.
And make no mistake, if we don't get started NOW, it will be dead for a 20-30 years. Insurance companies spents obscene amounts against ANY HC/I reform over the summer and are STILL spending to prevent the passage of this flawed bill. Imagine the campaign we would face after the recent SCOTUS ruling allowing the spending of corporation monies for political campaigns.
Sorry if you don't like it but:
Pass The Damn Bill!

Among the least known elements of the legislation is that the Congressional Budget Office has said health care reform would reduce the deficit.

The CBO wrote that the conditions favoring a reduction in the deficit (it specified them) were unlikely to be met.

SecularAnimist appears to be arguing that the House should not pass the Senate health care bill because the only reason to do so is: "otherwise the Democratic Party . . . may suffer in this year's elections." It is true that the Democratic Party may suffer in this year's elections" if they don't quickly pass the only passable comprehensive health care legislation. In fact, it is beyond a mere possibility, it is a near certainty that the Democratic will suffer grievously in this year's elections.

But the Democratic Party is not the only entity that will suffer -- 120 people will continue to die every year for want of health insurance. To save those lives, it is not necessary to have a single-payer system (the Dutch do quite nicely without such a system), a public option or an expansion of Medicare. All that is needed is to provide insurance which can be done by for-profit insurance companies. (Oddly, SecularAnimist does not mention that the Senate bill expands Medicaid or that the Senate bill also immediately bans denying insurance for pre-existing conditions or limiting insurance benefits; if SecularAnimist does not believe that these are important benefits, he should talk to someone with cancer or another chronic, but fatal, disease.)

SecularAnimist's argument for the House not passing the Senate health care reform bill is morally reprehensible.

BWN

"120 people will continue to die every year for want of health insurance."

Yes they will- REGARDLESS of this bill which does nothing for them except reward those who kept them from getting health care.

And thus we see the outcome of the Obama Administration shutting down the Obama campaign the day after the election. All that talk about keeping voters engaged through OFA was just that - talk. Obama was too busy creating the third Clinton Administration to want to have the public involved. Had all those energized voters (and I talked to them 8 hours a day 5 days a week for 6 months, so I know how energized they were everywhere) been working their representatives (the way the Obama campaign said they were going to have things work), all this would have been accomplished.

Like Matt Taibbi said - the Obama campaign to the Obama administration is the greatest bait and switch in the history of American politics.

Pelosi, Reid and a Obama can spend the whole weekend trying to find a way to still cram HCR through. It doesn't matter. The bill is dead. It died on Thursday when Massachusetts voters said no to Obamacare. Remember, Scott Brown'a campaign was specifically against Obamacare. He made no bones about it. The voters of Massachusetts agreed with him and that IS WHY he took Teddy's seat. Let's face it folks! It's over!

Like Matt Taibbi said - the Obama campaign to the Obama administration is the greatest bait and switch in the history of American politics.

I like Taibbi but that statement is just stupid. No amount of OFA was going to change the minds of Lieberman or Nelson. No amount of OFA was going to change the Republican's grand scheme of Weimar obstructionism. No amount of OFA was going to allow the whole of HCR to pass via reconciliation. Grandiose campaigning isn't the same as administrative arm twisting for a reason.

Having said that, I'd still like to see him lead more as a populist than as a grand agent of pragmatic compromise.

Sorry. I meant Tuesday's election. I still haven't gotten over the shock.

Sorry, about time, the populist image isn't going to sell either. It's too late for that. Unless you think we will all fall for his "bait and switch" once again.

It died on Thursday when Massachusetts voters said no to Obamacare.

LOL. Thanks for the great troll line, LibLover.

Yes, the people living in the only state in the U.S. with universal healthcare and the ones who kept a senator, who ran on universal healthcare, seated for 46 years agree with a Cosmo centerfold wingnut. Lol..... "rejected Obamacare". Next you'll be telling me they also voted to reject the closing of Guantanamo, to stop cap-and-trade, and to back the proposal of a constitutional budget amendment excluding all military and war related spending.

HAHAhahhahaahha.

Yes they will- REGARDLESS of this bill

You know, it's one thing to be woefully ignorant; it's a whole 'nother level of stupid to parade that ignorance far and wide. You might want to actually read the bill before you make an even bigger fool of yourse.f

The democratic party hasn't even begun to suffer like it will if we pass the senate bill. You have to be God-damned daft not to see how unpopular the thing is already with progressives and conservatives. The senate bill is a surrender. Passing it provides countless "tax the middle class" sound bytes. The Republicans played the Senate dems for fools. They won this round. The lesson unlearned is that you don't compromise on progressive ideas and placate lobbyists at the expense of the people. The democrats violated the trust of their own base in this--and the American people. The "pass the damn bill" crap is insultingly stupid. Tone deaf. You are really saying "Let them eat tax credits." Congratulations.

The present Senate bill needed 60 votes to be sent to the House; it got exactly that. If the House doessn't agree with everything in it and passes its' own bill, then the two bills go to conference. THAT bill still requires 60 votes in the Senate to get to floor where it can be voted up or down. Paging Leiberman...

Nobody thinks there will be a conference bill. The original Senate bill couldn't pass the Senate now.

What the House *can* do is pass the Senate bill as-is - removing the need to send anything back there to die - *and also* put together a package of amendments to the existing Senate bill and send it to the Senate to be passed under reconciliation - 51 votes, not 60. (50 plus Biden, strictly speaking.)

The point of disagreement, as far as I can tell, is that some people think the House should pass the Senate bill and send it to Obama for a signature first, and only then send on any reconciliation amendments. The House is reluctant to do that because it trusts the Senate about as far as it can throw it. Rightly so.

THIS is the stuff of internecine warfare? This tactical disagreement? This will make the difference between glory and doom? Really? This justifies a constant drumbeat of demonization and denunciation?

It's like you want to shoot the driver because you want to get on the freeway at the 7th street onramp and he wants to get on at 3rd street.

"You know, it's one thing to be woefully ignorant; it's a whole 'nother level of stupid to parade that ignorance far and wide. You might want to actually read the bill before you make an even bigger fool of yourse.f"

So then you can tell me exactly the enforcement mechanisms that will prevent this? You can show me the ironclad plan to hire the hundreds of new government lawyers it will require to take the insurance companies head on on the issue of recission? And you can demonstrate the almost certainly unconstitutional methods that will be used to prevent the republicans from simply not enforcing the regulations when they have the presidency.

I'm all ears. Obviously you can show all this because there's just no way you could be just talking out your ass. Right?

"It's like you want to shoot the driver because you want to get on the freeway at the 7th street onramp and he wants to get on at 3rd street."

It's more like you shoot the driver because he insists on driving full speed at a concrete wall and you'd prefer not to be taken along.

The senate bill is maybe not 180 degrees away from what we want and need but it's at least 175. There's no excuse for passing something that horrendously bad. The status quo is actually vastly better.

One assumes doctors and hospitals and states don't want to continue dealing with tens of millions of uninsured. One assumes the AARP wants its members' donut holes filled. Religious leaders might point out the immorality of leaving people without a fundamental right. Only reform would make it possible for pharmaceutical makers and insurers to expand their markets.

Maybe a pause to let the panic subside and marshall support from these stakeholders, who all endorsed the HCR bills or parts of them, is appropriate.

It is not so much whats in it, its whats in it for me.
Please answer in short snappy sentences only, as any type of policy-wonk language will make my eyes glaze over.

And when people are told they will be forced to buy insurance against their will? WHen told it costs $1 Trillion dollars? When told it has multiple tax increases? When told the Democrats wants to exempt unions, and only unions, from a particular tax? When told it cuts Medicare and promises lower reimbursement rates in the future? When told that it doesn't really lower insurance premiums? When told that the White House's own advisors have indicated it doesn't lower prices for years, at least? When told that the subsidies are not available for years, but the taxes start immediately? When told it taxes medical device makers who are relied upon to make innovative new products that improve the quality and quantity of life? When told it will, according to the Medicare actuary, twice, lead to decreased availibility and quality of senior care? When told that the only version that will be possible to pass requires taxpayers to subsidize abortions? WHen told that it only "lowers" the deficit because of accounting tricks and budget cuts that even the CBO is openly, and not subtly skeptical are politically feasible? When told there are almost no cost control measures? The list of negatives goes on and on.

Asking people about particular portions of the bill only is a worthless exercise. It's like pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.