"reform will die, the crisis will worsen, and Democrats will have committed electoral suicide on a grand scale."

But at least Faux News won't say bad things about them!

There has been no evidence presented they have souls to search.

The Repugnant strategy is to sit tight, wait for Obama to step out, and then ambush him.

But he knows that. He's known it all along. This god damn kabuki -- including Gibbs' comment that "next week" Obama will decide -- is the Village tribal dance, a performance for the benefit of the infantalized citizenry.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Dims are ceaselessly calculating and debating the ratios of real health care reform to lost corporate campaign donations, and where to draw the line.

By the way, I keep seeing the "51 votes needed in the Senate" reference. I would think that Dems only need 50 votes, plus the vote of VP Joe Biden to break the tie. Unless reconciliation is somehow different than normal Senate majority votes....

"No post-summit discussions," a senior House GOP aide emails. "There has been no substantive outreach from the White House."

Why should there be? The WH has reached out as far as it could, and now has drawn the line. Good for Obama.

"There has been no substantive outreach from the White House." A senior Senate GOP aide echoes: "No discussions."

Because in the bilateral, mutual relationship between the White House and GOP, only the White House can reach out.

The GOP chairman doesn't do policy. It's presidential candidatate doesn't use the internets or the google. It's VP candidate doesn't know or care what the Bush Doctrine is.

The GOP doesn't pick up the phone and reach out to the White House, unless they want to interfere in the Terry Schiavo case.

"this was a message to Republicans: we're getting ready to move. You can decide right now whether to work with Dems, or get left behind."

Too late, train's left the station. At the summit, the GOP disowned THEIR OWN IDEAS by demanding a do-over.

Any republican who tries to take ANY credit for this bill should loudly harangued into submission.

I know the trolls will laugh at that one, but nobody thought republicans would be defending Medicare, either.

Welcome to the wilderness, boys.

"By the way, I keep seeing the "51 votes needed in the Senate" reference. I would think that Dems only need 50 votes, plus the vote of VP Joe Biden to break the tie. Unless reconciliation is somehow different than normal Senate majority votes...."
Posted by: Tom Allen on February 27, 2010

Actually, you will find if there are only 50 yes votes, that the GOP will be appalled and asset to everyoe that it is outrageous for a VP to cast a tie-breaking vote on such an important matter, and is contrary to the spirit of bipartisanship which Republicans have always embraced

"No post-summit discussions," a senior House GOP aide emails. "There has been no substantive outreach from the White House." A senior Senate GOP aide echoes: "No discussions."

ROFLMAO.

The GOP is like the invited guest that trashes the house, insults the hosts and then goes home and expects someone to call them with an apology.

I should have added the Republicans will feel the need to express their sorry and outrage by taking additional steps to slow down any business in the senate

PS translated into english:"asset to everyoe" is "assert to everyone"

"Actually, you will find if there are only 50 yes votes, that the GOP will be appalled and asset to everyoe that it is outrageous for a VP to cast a tie-breaking vote on such an important matter, and is contrary to the spirit of bipartisanship which Republicans have always embraced"

Actually this argument would be shot down with a fact check regarding the Bush 2003 tax cuts that were tied at 50-50 and the VP cast the 51st yea vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00196

Having watched Democrats, and usually voted for them, since 1960, my money's still on suicide.

Steve Benen wrote: "... the nation will finally have the health care reform we've been waiting for since the days of Teddy Roosevelt."

Oh, please.

The hype that "sensible liberals" are spewing about the Senate bill is sickening.

It's like the New Deal and Medicare and Social Security and the Great Society all rolled into one!

Not.

It is a package of limited, modest regulation of the insurance corporations's most egregious, murderous practices, in return for which the American people will be required by law to guarantee and subsidize the profits of the for-profit insurance corporations in perpetuity.

It is the opposite of government programs like Medicare and Social Security, because it is designed to permanently eliminate any possibility of a universal, nonprofit health insurance system under open, accountable, efficient public administration, and instead entrenches the wealth and power of the insurance corporations forever.

The "public option" and "Medicare expansion" were compromises offered to advocates of single payer -- the best solution, the most popular solution, and the Solution That Must Not Be Mentioned in the "mainstream" political and media debate -- and they were lies. Neither the Obama administration nor the Senate Democrats led by insurance corporation stooge Max Baucus ever intended to pass either one.

Look, there is a case to be made that the corporate domination of America is today so complete and unshakeable, and its power over public policy so great, that the best we can hope for is that "kinder and gentler", "compassionate conservative" politicians like Obama will be able to negotiate a little better deal for the American people with our corporate overlords.

Perhaps the American people can hope to have a few scraps from the rich folks' table -- rather than getting kicks in the teeth as the Republicans would have it -- but can never hope to actually sit at the table.

Maybe the Senate bill is the best we can get in corporate-ruled America. Go ahead and make a case for that. I'll listen.

But stop the dishonest hype that the Senate bill is some sort of progressive apotheosis.

Addendum to my previous comment: Get ready. We'll have 10 years more of Republican dominance (2010-2116) and then the whole stinkin' mess will be dumped on another hapless Democratic president who'll once again be blamed for the whole stinkin' mess by the voters when he or she fails to have the magic instant cure wand. "To the syllable of recorded time." I think I'll take a nap.

"Actually this argument would be shot down with a fact check regarding the Bush 2003 tax cuts that were tied at 50-50 and the VP cast the 51st yea vote."

Dave, I fear you haven't been paying attention. You would be clearly wrong, either because a tax cut is entirely different from a substantive piece of legislation that will affect 1/6 of the American economy or because today's republicans are not bound by the distant past (anything before 2009). They are not responsible for it, Obama is.

Whenever I see repubs saying we have the best health care in the world I often wish we could have a split screen on the TV, on the other side the thousands who stand in line at those free clinics.

If only the Dems had a noise machine. They could turn this on the repubs pretty easily. Then again, if the Dems had a spine, they would have done so already. We have a republican party, fiercely opposed to their very own ideas, at the behest of their puppetmasters in the insurance industries and big pharma. And somehow, the Dems will see that they get richly rewarded for this.

Grow a pair, Dems. Pass.The.Damned.Bill.

The repug thugs opposition has nothing to do with health care or reform. It has to do with stalling and making the Administration and Democratic Party fail to maybe gain some repug thug seats in the midterm elections. They know that if health care succeeds, the repug thugs are done for a couple of generations.
I feel personally the biggest repug thug threat are the right wing religious zealots in the christian church.

Let's see now.

The Democrats in the House pass a courageously progressive health care reform bill that would bring real, fundamental change to the American health care system and establish the basis for truly universal nonprofit health insurance under open, accountable, efficient public administration.

The Senate Democrats, led by insurance corporation stooges like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman, throw the House Democrats under the bus, and pass a corporate welfare bill that eliminates the most important and real reforms of the House bill, substituting some modest and likely ineffective regulation of the insurance corporations' worst abuses, in return for which their wealth and power will be entrenched in law and all Americans will be required to subsidize and guarantee their profits.

And "sensible liberals" berate and vilify the progressive House Democrats, demanding that they "grow a pair" and pass the damned Senate Bill.

I can't really blame the Republicans for their obstinate intransigence.

It's just their job to play "bad cop" to the Senate Democrats' "good cop" as they browbeat the American people into accepting the "deal" that the corporations are offering.

217 and 51 is all that matters now.

Their position since the summit will only erode from here. The longer the D's wait at this point, the more the idle time will harm them.

Reconciliation and the whole process around it is entirely legitimate. Enough said. I won't spend any time here saying why. We know why. Making excuses or justifying it ad nauseum only make the Democrats look like feckless weenies at best and underhanded liars at worse.

Pelosi needs to lay down the law here. Time to enforce some GOP-style party discipline. I think she will. Liberals can fix what they don't like later. Blue Dogs need to be given an ultimatum: no DNC money without a yes vote.

You can't have it both ways. Health reform is THE Democratic issue. It's the only thing I'd call real ideology among the Dems. If a Dem legislator can't go with it, after all the negotiation, all the abuse, they're not a Democrat. The GOP can have them, for all it's worth to the cause.

What do we actually stand for, after all?

Own it. Be proud of it. Pass the damn thing.

@SecularAnimist. Your point is taken except you seem to imply that the law cannot be amended or changed sometime in the future when using the word "perpetuity". For we mere mortals, there is no such thing as "perpetuity".

To naysayers on the progressive side (Secular Animist above; Tlaloc, Squiggleslash & others on other threads), you don't get it. Yes, single payer or even just the public option would make far more sense and would be vastly preferable to what the Democrats are likely to enact. However, with the public we've got and the representatives we've got, this is as good as it's going to get for now, and if we do nothing the next shot will likely be even more timid ten or twenty years from now.

However, once we've got it and have spent a year or two enriching insurance companies unnecessarily, we can all express great surprise, saying things like "well, national health insurance has helped a lot of people and Grandma's still alive, but why are we wasting so much money on middlemen?" and, "you know, wouldn't it make a lot more sense just to send all that paperwork and payments through a single clearing center?" and "if we consolidated things a bit more, we could get really good economies of scale and could really step up the cost saving", and at that point the choice would be between repealing all the health insurance reform (along with going back to recission, huge rate increases, many uninsured, and so on) on the one hand, and making some eminently sensible and no longer so scary changes on the other hand.

You head into the future with the country you've got, not the one one you'd like to have. The one you want to have is the one you should keep focussed on working toward, even if incrementally.

The Silence Of The Lambs ?????????????????????????

Shorter Thursday Health Care Summit.

As one of those progressives @N. Wells refers to, I'm in complete agreement. Let's deal with reality here, not our noble wishes for a noble future.

But as for Republican soul-searching, first (as someone else remarked, more or less) they gotta have souls. I've almost given up on Democrats as competent adults, but I still think they have souls.

The way we get beyond this, then, is to walk smartly past the morally-moribund Republicans and deal with our own side. It is kind of shocking that, aside from Pelosi, we don't have anyone to do the whipping needed to get a sure-fire majority. A solid majority must be found and the two sides of Congress need to act together with unusual speed and absence of masturbatory side-shows.

Reid just isn't doing the job. Watching Dick Durbin in action, I think he's the best man for completing the job. This is not a matter of being mean to Harry Reid, but face it -- he spoke in the meeting like a man so tired he's beyond tired and into dementia. He's been working his butt off, however ineffectively. I hope that his colleagues see this and perform a work-around, pointing out to dissident Dems that a half-way decent health care reform plus survival of the Party depends on their pulling together.

If the party leadership doesn't pull this off, I'm willing to bet the Republicans, the moment they have a majority, will produce a very corporate-leaning ghost of a health care bill. It would be a bill full of those magic Republican donut holes aimed at the "hobos" and "welfare queens" but it would be a bill passed quickly by a slick and attentive majority and they'd walk away with the gold, for god's sake. Leaving all of us, from progressives through cornhuskers, back where we started.

I agree with N.Wells. Of course it sucks that better reforms aren't part of this, and of course single-payer is better, and of course the opportunism of people like Stupak and Nelson has been rank. In terms of justice _and_ in terms of efficiency, what has emerged from this process is suboptimal.

But, though it's depressing to contemplate, _these are the most auspicious, most liberal conditions we're going to have_ for the foreseeable future. These are the biggest Democratic majorities we've seen. Conventional wisdom is that Republicans will gain this year. Who knows about 2012?

Blowing it up means waiting not just for better ideas to take hold among the populace but for better politicians to be elected, who push that political equilibrium farther to the left. And, sad to say, that's probably going to be a devastatingly long wait.

Does Pelosi really believe that if the House passes the Senate bill, the Senate will fix it? If so she must also believe in the tooth fairy. House Dems need to read the Big Pharma and Big Insurance Health Care Reform Bill written by the White House and Senate Dems before jumping off a cliff and voting for this bill.
Are these Progressives Ideas?
No Drug Importation for americans o-kay with Obama and Senate Dems
No Public Option for the american people o-kay with Obama and Senate Dems
Excise tax on Union Health Care Plans o-kay with Obama and Senate Dems
Individual mandate forcing people to buy Health Insurance from for profit companies, o-kay with Obama and Senate Dems
Turning back the clock on abortion rights o-kay with Obama and Senate Dems
Obama’s big change is to INCREASE the IRS penalty if americans don’t buy Health Insurance from for profit Health Insurance companies WOW!
If a House Dems votes for this HCR scam Bill they have sold out all of the Progressive principles and will be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE.
New Flash to House Dems, the NATION IS CURRENTLY In a DEPRESSION.
The people want CONGRESS talking about JOBs, Jobs, Jobs, (Democrats don’t jump off a cliff and vote for this mess of a Bill) Especially when the USA is in a DEPRESSION or Jobless Recovery

Does Pelosi really believe that if the House passes the Senate bill, and the Senate will fix it? If so she must also believe in the tooth fairy. The House progressives and Blue Dogs would be nuts to pass the Senate Bill which contains so many toxic ideas that both the left and the right hate. It is a no win situation for the Dems and they will all pay at the polls if they pass this toxic mess of a bill on the "promise" the Senate will "fix" the bill later. Do they also believe that if Nancy Pelosi leaves the passed Senate bill under her pillow, the Tooth Fairy will pick it up?

N. Wells, the short version is that you need to re-read what SecularAnimist was responding to, which is the absurd statement that this is the bill we've been waiting for a century to see. It's not even close to that.

As for the rest, there is still no means of enforcing the regulations on insurance in this bill. That means that those regulations really don't exist. There is nothing in it that will control the ridiculous cost of drugs. There is nothing in it, in short, that will fix most of what's wrong with our system, and in turn we are obligated to buy insurance that won't do us any good.

The only thing good that I can see in this bill is that the expanded Medicaid coverage will be paid for, starting in 2014.

Anyone who could qualify as a "realist" would realize that this bill is a step backward. That's why I'm opposed to it.

Cujo - what you say would be true IF there was nothing in the bill mandating that insurers spend x percentage of premiums on actual benefits. That's a limit on profit and overhead. And that's not the only inaccuracy in what you've posted.

The current system is so fouled up that it's not really possible for anything to be "a step backward". But those of us who have been in the individual insurance market for the past 20 years have quite a different perspective than those who have always had employer-provided insurance, I'm sure. Just being allowed to purchase coverage will be a HUGE step forward for millions of people who currently can't get insurance thanks to pre-existing conditions, not to mention for the millions more who can't currently get coverage because they can't afford it.

Obviously it could be better - much better. But getting something that at least allows everyone access to coverage is a huge improvement over what we've got now.

Republicans: through the looking glass, down the rabbit hole, and into the gaping jaws of a very hungry Jabberwocky called Teabagger. They promised to defeat Obama, to---as their de facto leader blathered---"fail", but the only ones wearing rotten egg on the face are the GOP.

A GOP split will finish these clowns off once and for all....

Neill: This god damn kabuki -- including Gibbs' comment that "next week" Obama will decide -- is the Village tribal dance, a performance for the benefit of the infantalized citizenry.

The kabuki, as you call it, was quite informative. Among adults who have actually read the CBO analyses of the last House and Senate bills opposition to the Democratic plans increased after the health care summit. Only a minority believe either that Obama was telling the truth or that the health insurance overhaul will produce federal savings.

Democrats took control in 2006 and 2008 because Republicans abused government power and were corrupt. Now Obama is abusing government power almost as much (in line with his FISA vote), Congressional Democrats are corrupt (this time Rangel in the spotlight again), and Democrats are trying for yet another expansion of federal power. Only a minority of Americans support what the Dems are trying to accomplish.

Steve Benen: The train is leaving the station.

What you are witnessing is a huge departure of swing voters from Democratic incumbents. Even Sen. Boxer is not safe, in a highly Democratic state. Toomey looks good for the PA federal senate election (too soon for high expectations, of course), and Sens Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu all seem to be in serious trouble.

SecularAnimist: It is a package of limited, modest regulation of the insurance corporations's most egregious, murderous practices, in return for which the American people will be required by law to guarantee and subsidize the profits of the for-profit insurance corporations in perpetuity.

That's true. Among the mysteries is why this law is supported by any liberals, not to mention FDR/Truman/LBJ liberals. It's as if FDR had implemented SS by requiring citizens and their employers to make regular "contributions" to a bunch of banks and other commercial financial institutions -- the justly derided Bush plan.

218, not 217.

Puh-leeze, do the math.

Considering that the goal of the legislation is health care INSURANCE reform, I fail to understand what the problem is with several posters. It DOES reform the most egregious faults of health care insurance; recissions and "pre-existing" conditions, for example. National exchanges will help provide access for many individuals. Is it what I prefer? No. Is it what can pass the House and Senate? With some tweaking, yes. So it represents the most "progressive" legislation we will see for a while concerning health care insurance reform.
Of even more importance, in my opinion, is that it will put the Federal government on record as being responsible for ensuring that all citizens have access to AFFORDABLE health care insurance. That is why the Republicans are so dead against ANY reform; once begun it will be impossible to turn the clock back and they know it. The debate in the future will no longer be about whether or not the Federal government should be involved at all, but how much involvement should there be.
And if it turns out in five or ten years that the best affordable health care insurance should be some form of Medicare buy-in or single-payer, well then...

Let's not forget the real reason Republicans have opposed Obama's health care plans from the get-go. It has nothing to do with policy.

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him" - Senator Jim DeMint

Contrary to this report, TPM is reporting that the White House has reached out to Coburn regarding his plan to reduce Medicare fraud.

Complaining that the bill is too friendly to corporations is (1) probably valid; (2) probably unavoidable. The country as a whole is too friendly to corporations. That's going to have to be an ongoing battle, and IMHO it's unnecessarily purist to draw that line here.

The government issues food stamps that get redeemed at corporate grocery stores, resulting in public money going into private corporate pockets, no? But that's still better than _not_ giving out food stamps until there's an established network of nonprofit commissary-type stores stocked by government purchasers.

It's well pass time to accomplish Health Care Reform. Time has now become the enemy of reform. The longer it has taken to pass the bill the more unpopular it seems to have grown. Even at this hour, decisive haste in completing the legislation would play well. If Speaker Pelosi could push passage of the Senate bill through in the first week of March, the bill would instantly become popular once again. Because the people want to see decisive action on health care reform. As far as the majority of Americans is concerned, squabbles over intricacies of policy and niceties of procedure are pains in the ass that turn them off the whole idea of reform.

The government issues food stamps that get redeemed at corporate grocery stores, resulting in public money going into private corporate pockets, no? But that's still better than _not_ giving out food stamps until there's an established network of nonprofit commissary-type stores stocked by government purchasers.
Posted by: FlipYrWhig on February 27, 2010 at 7:07 PM |

It is quite evident that you're an evil islamofascistcommie, just like Obama. If you were a good, Christian, Real American Teabagger (aka RAT), you'd know that the best solution is not to give food stamps to the rabble which encourages them (it?) to breed and require more food stamps at taxpayers expense. The best solution is for them to quit whining, grab their bootstraps and haul. And, if they can't... That's what charities are for.

Seriously. I volunteer at a local Free Clinic and mentioned something to one of our patients about how much I was looking forward to the public option, available to anyone who wanted it (This, obviously, was in the *very* early stages of the discussion, when Obama was still talking about "robust" PO and keeping the insurance companies honest. Remember those days? Just one degree removed from single payer which, at that point, looked like possible fix somewhere in near future).

Anyway. The woman looked down her nose and told me "We believe that people ought to be able to take care of their own, not depend on the government to rescue them from their own folly". She said it with perfectly straight face, surrounded by 6 of her 12 children, 8 of whom qualify for our pediatric dental program (the remaining 4 are excluded by the virtue of being either too old or too young). All 12 have been/are home-schooled (naturally). Neither of the parents works outside the home (which is why their low income qualifies them for our services). Both parents are big-time activists in the Republican Party *and* in the Teabagging movement (I've seen them, while "shilling for Dems" at various venues).

The irony of what she said left me picking my lower jaw off the floor but, depending on charity care never struck her as being incongruous or inconsistent with her "philosophy". As we used to say in Poland: "the hands fall down (in despair)"...

Did you hear the one about Obama being a good poker player?

I sense two trends over the last few days.

1) It's high hot noon in the casino and the republicans are chewing their little green visors and sweating a lot. Why? Because Health Care Reform really is epic. No one has brought groceries home from Congress like this for 40 years. This is big-time bacon. All chips in and everybody rushing the table to watch the final flop...
The stuff of lore, grand tales, and a thousand books...

2) It powerfully rearms the democrats heading into the midterms. This changes the dynamics in ways we can't grok. The democrats will have something to run on and something to run against. But deeper than the midterms: How long has it been since the Democratic party had a booster shot of self-esteem? A half century? It sure seems like it. The bigger question: How does that booster shot change things? Does it empower? Focus? Recreate a sense of change we can believe in? Will it grow the Democratic party?

The bottom line: This is huge. Epic really.
It changes everything going forward.
I hold off going any deeper, until the final cards are turned. With but two reminders:

Eyes on the prize please.
Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Glad to hear Gibbs is willing to let Obama "make a decision."

I dunno. I flew down to Palm Beach the other day to visit my parents and my mom has gone from listening to Glenn Beck to taking seriously the fact that health care reform must be done pretty soon. She said she watched the whole summit on Thursday, but after a bit of back and forth, and showing the actual video of the Summit on whitehouse.gov,it appears that "following it closely" was akin to watching Fox doing "Breaking News". Granted, my mum tends to go as the wind blows but she really was compelled by the differences in substance of the presentations. Even Nancy Pelosi went from hell cat to reasonable human being in her eyes. That's pretty substantial. Just the facts. She may convince the twin-set and pearls crowd next. One can hope.

What was most telling was her realization that health care as she has known it has been a pretty limited view of the actual yearly costs of a premium and how good she and my father have had it as contributed by his past employer. I work for a nonprofit who provides me care and when I told her how much it costs each year for my employer to, essentially, cover a yearly physical, she about fell over. These are people who did the Depression. She just did not know.

I don't know where republican can even get off claiming to defend the public option when they've been so vehemently against it for years. It's like if this prison warden suddenly said he has a change of heart on corruption in law enforcement completely contrary to his own actions: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/18/sheriff-joe-vs-the-feds/

Well, if passing this insurance "reform" bill results in Reid, Nelson, Lincoln, & Landrieu losing in 2010, I say pass the damn bill.

Besides, watching Obama triangulate within his own party is becoming pretty sad- he will be much happier when he can use real Republicans for the corporate sell-out game and he can let our corrupt Democratic Congress go back to pretending to represent the people that elected them.

It's good to see that he was able to make a difference, but it's sad he was able to see it come to fruition. But it looks like one judge in California may see gay rights vindicated: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/09/judge-in-prop-8-case-is-probably-gay-so-what/

Didn't Kyle say Republicans wouldn't come on board no matter how many of their ideas were incorporated?

Obama should tell the Dems to pass it or he will take a hike.

Our country is something more than just what happens

in Washington.

The battle for healthcare is huge, and it reveals vast chasms in beliefs, extreme views, corporate-global interests versus home-grown jobs and sustainable social networks.

Yet, it does matter how Washington operates.

The problem is.... do we let the loudest (and here silent) voices rule the debate?

Aren't we really looking deep into our country's soul and seeing corporate versus individual interests locked in a battle to get public funds?

Tax cuts are huge grabs of the public monies.

Health Insurance is not the same thing as health delivery.

We do have some of the best facilites on the planet, but that doesn't mean our current system

isn't gamed to line corporate pockets.

Democrats= for the people

Republicans= global corporate players and IRS haters.

SecularAnimist on February 27, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Nail - Head.

And why exactly is it the WH's responsibility to initiate talks? Aren't the Republicans capable of using telephones?