Whether you like it or not, the only way it will get done is for the Senate to go first, because nobody does or should trust them. 100% of the responsibility for the delay belongs to the Senate. Stop pretending otherwise.

The only problem is finding 50 Senators willing to stand up for their constituents. We know the Republicans are taking a pass, so are the Democrats who every morning wake up in bed with Insurance Company executives and lobbyists. We can also count out the handful of Democrats who are afraid they are going to lose this fall. Are there 50 Senators who care more about their constituents than the insurance industry? America wants to know.

Steve, I want some of what you're smoking.

This is classic Obama, a pattern now well-defined after one year. he gives a strong, eloquent speech that seems to clarify his thinking and to hint that the dithering is over only to do . . . nothing. At this point I can't see what he could do.

I admire your tenacity in pushing a simple way forward, but it feels like you're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Time to head for the life boats, alas.

Seriously what planet is Obama on, what is wrong with with him?

It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of possibility. There are significant obstacles to starting with the Senate. Furthermore, it somewhat strains credulity to believe that the Senate bill as is is worth killing but the Senate bill plus the "fixes" is worth saving. There's just not that much daylight between them. I feel Pelosi and a few other House members have boxed themselves into a corner by insisting the Senate bill could not pass as is; now they can't swallow their pride and admit that this was just a power play. If the bill dies and the 30 million people whom it would help are left to twist in the wind because of the House's obstinacy, I will have a hard time supporting another so-called "liberal" again.

And yes, the House is being obstinate here. The House passed a bill, then the Senate passed a bill. The ball is in the House's court.

There is such an obvious, simple way to get this done:Obama publicly convenes House and Senate leaders, describes the core of the Senate bill he wants, and asks for specific changes to be made by the Senate so the House can pass the core. If he does not do that publicly and soon, the rest is just rhetoric designed to let Democratic voters down easily and extract more money from them. Obama says lack of communication and transparency is the problem. Fine, only he can orchestrate the prompt correction of that.

The White House needs to stop asking House and Senate leaders what their members are prepared to do. The answer will ALWAYS be: not enough. If Obama makes public requests for the almost doable, they will do it. This President, so far, has proved miserably deficient in getting Congress to act. It means that his presidency is going to go down in history as a monumental failure, even if he stays in office as a pleasant media presence.

There are significant obstacles to starting with the Senate.

No there aren't. There are only lame excuses.

You want a bill passed? Then the Senate goes first. Simple as that. That's where pressure needs to be applied.

"Punch it through?" Give me a friggin' break. Obama couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. How many times have we heard the ringing declarations, the stirring calls to action, the promises of fierce advocacy, only to watch him walk away rather than face a fight? Obama's a sucker, not a fighter.

Why not throw the Republicans a bone in the form of a study of tort reform issues or some flimflam so dear to them and then announce that you have responded to their concerns and plow full speed ahead? Even if you don't get any real Republicans, which you won't, since they are all taking marching orders from Frank Luntz.

Even if you don't get any real Republicans, which you won't, since they are all taking marching orders from Frank Luntz.

That's exactly why you DON'T throw them a bone. It accomplishes nothing except to help them with their framing.

Is that *the* Theda Skocpol?

"Red Zone", "Got to punch it in", Hmmm, shame that so many were led to believe we had a Peyton Manning at the helm, or even a Bobby Douglas, only to find out that trailing by six, we have Ypremian behind center.

They are not only "taking marching orders from Frank Luntz", but, you, also, have the Nancy Pftonhauers of the world, running around spouting off the bogus findings of the paid by UnitedHealthCare, Lewin Group. Politcofactcheck may try to counter it with fact checks placed on Page 2 of the Oregonian, but, far too many readers will never see it and will believe the Page 1 story of Nancy P. She headed the mis-named "Independent Women's Forum founded by Lynn Cheney, after leaving the far right wing Koch Industries, and then becoming a spokesperson for Double Talk, who, seemingly, is having flashbacks of shower problems of his own in the Navy.

I think many in the Democratic base could take the tune "Show Me" from My Fair Lady and very slightly modify it as their anthem: "Don't Talk of Health Care, Show Me."

The Republicans passed serious legislation without ever having 60 Senate Republicans. You dont think if Palin (or whatever Republican) is President in 2012 and they control each House by 1 vote, serious legislation WILL get passed? You may not like its content, but it sure as !@#$%^&* will be serious.

After one year, we've seen the real Obama who isn't going to change-- always trying to be the Compromiser-in-Chief. That works with reasonable, but not intransigent, opposition [Try channelling J.Q Adams, S.F Douglas, N. Chamberlain, J. Carter.] The problem is not in the stars or the Constitution. It is primarily in Obama and secondarily the Senate Democrats.

Unfortunately, the only strategy with any hope of success to change Obama's and the Blue Dog's constantly repeated behaviors is for a credible Progressive to announce a run in 2012 or agains Senators PDQ. Almost certainly, sufficient (>20%) Democrats will support to activate Obama's or Blue Dog's primal instinct to compromise -- this time leftward.

Is this strategy risky?? Sure is... but what does it risk?? No Progressive legislation for 4 years, 2012-2016-- with hope beyond for a true Progressive in 2016? That's no great loss... with Obama and Blue Dogs in charge with no leftward pull, Progressive legislation is already lost for 6 years, 2010-2016--- and probably well beyond as inadequate stimulus, jobs, bank regulation bills, continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, no health reform and a host of other quarter-way to half-way measures prove to voters the fallacy of Progressive/Liberal concepts and constantly reinforce how feckless Democrats are.

Do you really want a set of wimps and chumps negotiating with Iranian Mullahs, Korean Dear Leaders, Russian ex KGB, etc ... many voters will not-irrationally vote "no".

As said elsewhere : "When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right." If you've conceded that one of your ideas -- one of your most important ideas is a bad one -- why should the public trust any of the other ideas that you have? Instead, they're going to say: Well, thank you Obama and Mr. Blue Dog -- I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking on this. Now I'm going to vote for the guy who didn't have the bad idea in the first place and is willing to fight.

What are the deal-breakers in the Senate Bill for the House? The Nelson turd and so-called Cadillac tax don't seem worth scrapping the rest. They should pass the damn bill.

Steve: "He continues to talk about trying to bring Republicans on board with reform, which seems extremely unlikely"

The question is whether his idea is to stop his independent supporters from swinging to the GOP in November, by shining a 'spotlight' on them, OR is it pure political naivete.

I certainly believe it is the former. We would be wrong to believe that Obama is counting on Republicans to pass healthcare.

The Nelson turd and so-called Cadillac tax don't seem worth scrapping the rest.The Nelson turd and so-called Cadillac tax don't seem worth scrapping the rest.

I'm afraid you're mistaken about that. The former is, for some reason, very unpopular with the public (I don't see why it's such a big deal either, but it's well-documented by polls) and the latter is a huge turnoff to union voters, who are critical to Dem success in many states.

Did you happen to notice there was a special election in Mass. recently? How'd that go? Passing the Senate bill as-is would pretty much guarantee a lot more where that came from. No can do. The Senate must get off its collective ass and get this done.

If Obama wants to get this done there is a simple solution: Tell Reid to break out the cots and force the GOP to filibuster. When the filibuster is over, you pass the bill (the House Bill, a compromise bill, whatever) with 51+ votes. Contrary to popular belief, the minority cannot maintain a filibuster forever, even if they had the physical stamina to manage it.

So, why wont this happen. Two reasons. First, Reid and Obama lack the balls to challenge the GOP and the lobbyists head on. Second, the fiction that every bill requires 60 votes is an illusion that Obama wants to maintain in order to continue his kabuki act of pretending that he has to water down legislation in order to pass it. If Obama broke the filibuster there would no longer be any excuse for not passing progressive legislation left and right, pardon the pun.

Geez, folks around here have the patience of three-year-olds. When Brown was elected, Obama said that there would not be a HCR vote in the Senate before Brown was seated. That would be February 11th. After that, Reid will find 50 votes to pass a reconciliation bill (it will be close), Pelosi will pass the Senate HCR bill and the recon bill and Obama will sign both. And then Benen's commentors will find something else to complain about Obama. (I'm very sure of that last one.)

Emanuel has thoroughly discredited himself. He should leave the arena and leave the legislative liaison to an adult with fewer shit eating grins and more political savvy.

"There's a better, quicker, more effective, and more efficient way to go -- the House passes the already-approved Senate bill, the Senate agrees to improvements through reconciliation."

You're right, but the agreement specifying the bill amendments has to be in writing, signed by 50+ senators, before the House passes anything. I think if Harry Reid could produce that, then Nancy Pelosi would push to pass the Senate bill. I don't see any evidence that Reid has even TRIED to do this.

No fucking way the House will pass the Senate bill on the "word" of Harry Reid. NO FUCKING WAY.

Of course I noticed there was a special election. It is because the Senate does not have 60 votes to pass a reconciled House/Senate bill that the House needs to act to get this done. I still don't know what aspects of the Senate bill are deal breakers. The two I mentioned may be unpopular, but are pretty small compared to the benefits.

It is because the Senate does not have 60 votes to pass a reconciled House/Senate bill that the House needs to act to get this done.

People who are this confused about what "reconciliation" means (and how many votes it requires) really shouldn't be commenting. Your time would be better spent informing yourself.

I was talking about reconciling the two already passed bills in conference committee, which would require each chamber to vote again. And would be subject to a filibuster in the Senate. A little less hostility, please. I think I've asked a reasonable question.

If Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi don't know their careers are on the line by now, unenforcable threats from the White House won't make any difference.
I understand that Pelosi may have a "safe" seat, but that doesn't mean the Speakership is hers to keep and I think she likes being Speaker. Reid's only chance at re-election is passing legislation that he can run on; "attempts" are only a statistic in basketball...