As I understand things, the Senate health care bill is more conservative than the House bill.

So, the House doesn’t want to pass the Senate bill because it is too conservative.

The Senate doesn’t want to make changes to the bill to make it more liberal because they think there bill is better and they don’t have the votes to make it more liberal.

So the House is left with a choice. They can either pass the Senate bill which is closer to the House bill than the status quo or they can not pass the Senate bill.

If they do the first then they get a lot closer to what they want than if they let the bill die.

Now, people are worried about reelection.

Can you imagine running against an incumbent who voted for a liberal bill and then got scared and didn’t vote for the slightly more conservative bill?

If you liked either bill then you would be mad at him for not passing either bill.

If you didn’t like either bill, would you give him the benefit of the doubt and say “well at least he realized that his first vote was a mistake.? Or would you vote for his opponent who said “I never liked either bill. I didn’t need an election in Massachusetts to get me to change my mind. I knew what was best. My opponent doesn’t understand healthcare because he NEVER should have voted for the bill to begin with.”

I just can’t see anyone supporting any Congressman who switched their vote.

What I am missing? It seems obvious to me the ONLY chance for survival is to pass the bill and hope the public is happy.

It's worth considering why Obama can't or won't do the necessary arm-twisting here. If Bush were president, he'd have few problems going the distance. But Bush also had a Republican caucus that was keenly responsive to the base, which in turn was keenly responsive to its puppetmasters in the media. Democrats don't have this system. Their lack of party discipline is structural, not characterological.

I thought that calls to my representative and another I've contributed to were actually making a difference. I called twice, once just after the Scott Brown disaster, and again a few days later, and sensed they had been receiving lots of calls to Pass.The.Damn.Bill, and they were having an effect.

Let me say that I'm in New York, and the reps were liberal and Blue Doggish, but that both were disoriented at first. After a few days, however, the calls were focusing their attention in both cases.

The President is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. I can't think of anyone better suited to start providing some direction to the House and Senate.

On a separate issue, I think that the DNC needs to start setting the tone too. HCR is a Democratic platform item and Dems like Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln, et al. who oppose it should know that they won't get as much help in the future.

We have traveled a long road this past year. The noise of now can drown out the pleas of the (recent) past. Ignoring why we need reform means a futile future. Here are two random bits from 2008.

"Voters have identified health care as the leading domestic issue for the government to address and for the presidential candidates to discuss in the 2008 campaign"
http://www.health08.org/sidebyside.cfm

.."health care reform plan design is key to ensuring that the reforms have a deep impact on the country's ability to make significant, long-lasting improvements in access to care, equity, quality of care, efficiency, and cost control. The authors state that the most important feature of any health care reform will be its ability to provide health insurance and access to health care for all."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080115092959.htm

I hope the folks in Washington pass more than gas!

PTDB. Man, I'm beginning to like that moniker.

Imagine if the Democrats, six months ago, had decided to soak it to the rich, funded a public option (regardless of the method), and made all of the other reforms that everybody (even the Republicans) will agree is necessary. Would they have been significantly worse off than they are now? No. Why is that so hard to understand?

The Blue Dogs are balking because the excise tax and individual mandate are wildly unpopular. Instead, open Medicare to all, funded by fees on Wall Street, and lift the anti-trust exemption so private insurers can't fix prices, all of which are wildly popular ideas. Then dare Republicans and Blue Dogs to vote no. Even if this failed, it would show Democrats have the guts to fight for their beliefs. And it might just show the Blue Dogs that their constituents don't want Republican Lite, they don't want corporate lapdogs -- they want legislators who actually represent them.

So, Reid says we'll "We're going to do health care reform this year".

That's somewhat reassuring. There's nothing like the "Fierce urgency of...sometime this year."

It some ways it has to fall on Obama's shoulders. Certain types of redistributive legislation can only really pass with strong Presidential support. This has been made even more important by the united filibuster position of the Republicans. So the only one that can put the necessary pressure on the wavering Dems is Obama. I've argued that Obama needs to spend more time reading FDR speeches but while doing that he might also try reading about LBJ's tactics.

"What I am missing?" - neil wilson

A democratic senator died and is being replaced by a republican. In order to get HCR passed via legislation, the current senate bill is it. There is not enough time for a house/senate compromise - the new repub. senator will be sworn in before it's done.

The house can "bounce" the senate bill to the POTUS for immediate signature, and it's a done deal- no revote on a compromise needed. However, the house wants changes, via reconciliation, which can be attached to budgetary issues.

However, the senate has not given any assurances that such reconciliation measures will be agreed to. So, the house is doing nothing. The question is, how long can this phase last? Does the senate bill expire at some point?

The Senate bill passed with provisions that would garner a 60-vote majority. We don't need 60 votes now.

Reid has to figure out who he can afford to jettison (Nelson, Lieberman, et al) and what baggage they brought to the bill. Then he needs to get a commitment SIGNED IN BLOOD from the other 50+ senators on an amended bill without those provisions. Then he takes it back to the house, who will likely approve it provided he's eliminated some of the more egregious stuff.

Meanwhile, they have to aggresively market the best parts of the HCR bill. That means going on shows, holding press conferences and running ads. Any GOP bullshit has to be directly challenged and the perpetrator should be mocked and demeaned at every opportunity. If possible, challenge the GOP to a side-by-side comparison of their bill against ours, on national TV if possible.

As public perception of the bill improves, so will the amount of leverage they have over recalcitrant Dems because they will be told in no uncertain terms that they will be singled out as the primary causes for the bill's failure and will lose the support of the party.

That's how it can get done. Rhetorically speaking, there will be a number of twisted arms, broken fingers and busted kneecaps along the way, but if that's how its got to be done, then so be it.

The huge obstacle to this plan is that we have Caspar Milquetoast as Senate speaker, and not Al Capone.

Would they have been significantly worse off than they are now? No.

Yes, in fact, they would, because they'd have something like 48-52 votes in the Senate. The Bayh, Carper, etc. center-right crowd would have balked long ago.

Clarification: When I talk about Reid bringing the bill back to the house, I mean the amendments to be passed through reconciliation.

There's no way we can resubmit the entire bill for a vote.

I suggest Plouffe, Axelrod, and Gibbs study how Bush's brain Rove and Company were able to sell the Iraq war (beginning in September because "You don't introduce a new product in August").

If the Bush people were able to sell something as negative as war, how come the Obama's people cannot sell positive programs such as the stimulus and health care???

On a separate issue, I think that the DNC needs to start setting the tone too. -- bkmn, @15:47

Don't hold your breath; I'd hate to see you suffocate. The DNC is now in the hands of Tm Kaine, our (I'm in VA) erst-while Governor. A pleasant man, who plays decent blue-grass harmonica but who has as much zeal and appeal as a mugful of cod liver oil. My guess is he was Rahmbo's special pick, when he finally managed to dig the pit under Dean. I expect that the calculation was that he'd help in keeping VA blue for the Dems and also that it would be a reward for his early "come-out" for Obama. I also head that he's not half-bad at fundraising, sice he's one of the Old VA blue-bloods. But, from the POV of the party building... There could have hardly been a worse choice.

There is one reason, and one reason only why this thing might fade away: It is really, really unpopular. You can try and blame it on procedure, a lack of communication, etc. but the public knows what is in the bill, and a sizable majority just doesn't want it, period. The ONLY people who have come out in support of using reconciliation are liberals in safe districts. When we start hearing moderates talking about how they want to use reconciliation and that fixing the bill and having the HOuse pass it is a good idea, then we will know it is close to getting done.

Face it, if Blue Dogs and moderate Senators didn't know a vote for this would cost them their jobs, it would have passed already.

On the part about "not just for the insurance industry. " my representative, a member of the C St. coalition, has a bit on his web page pushing the Republican theme of introducing "competition" by allowing the insurance companies to move to the state with the flimsiest regulations. Then they would be allowed to sell in any state and would be allowed to screw over their clients regardless of the other state's regulations.

This is part and parcel of what the Republicans want to do, enrich the insurance executives far beyond all dreams of avarice while at the same time telling the voters that it's for their own good, it's all American free market, and the government is off your back. That common people have no choice but to submit is irrelevant.

BobG: "...the public knows what is in the bill, and a sizable majority just doesn't want it, period."

Are you serious? THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT IS IN THE BILL??? Hell, most of Congress doesn't know what's in the bill, all you hear is about how no one has read it. You think Joe Beercan knows what's in the bill? Joe Beercan cannot name a single member of Congress from his State. Joe Beercan has been told nothing but lies about this bill without refutation. Joe Beercan cannot grasp basic risk calculation concepts such as a larger pool of participants LOWERS AVERAGE COSTS.

We're doing health care reform this year??? Judging by Reid's record of promising delivery dates on this, this is a very bad sign.

Yoni, Americans LOVE war, especially republicans. When has a war not been an easy sell in this country? When has getting out of a war ever been an easy sell?