All I can say is FINALLY!! Leadership, spine, determination. Now as Mr. Benen would say- PASS.THE.DAMN.BILL.

And then let's do real climate change legislation and financial regulatory reform, immigration reform, and get rid of DADT.

Hear, hear.

Now pass. The damn. Bill.

There he goes, reminding me why I voted for him again. This was really good stuff. Crisp, concise, surgical - and accurate.

It was great stuff. Now, dems need to stop being pussies and PASS. THE. DAMNED. BILL

More, more, more. Start naming names & contribution amounts, too.

You forgot to mention the legislation keeps getting WORSE, now with the addition of fake malpractice reform which will cap damages for injured patients and more horrible horrible health savings accounts which favor the wealthy and are the opposite of preventive care.

He just keeps EXPANDING the SUICIDE campaign platform for Democrats to run on in November.

Yeah, but who won the day? Tune into C-ESPN 1 and C-ESPN 2 to find out....

Joe Friday - Thanks for your concern. We democrats sincerely appreciate your attempts to stop us from passing a health care bill that will hurt our electoral chances in November. Your thoughts have been noted. Now go pound sand up your ass.

Finally, a glimpse of the man who I worked my tail off for in 2008. Now pass.the.damn.bill.

Bless y'alls hearts. Look, Obama gives good speech. It's the follow through that matters. Will he really fight for this by twisting arms and exercising the many levers of power that he has, or will he follow his all too familiar pattern of talking big and then backing down where the rubber meets the road.

Don't count me as one who will be holding his breath for the former.

Rathskeller,

How juvenile.

Drop dead.

it's not juvenile, passing HCR is actually deadly serious. but I don't have to take you seriously.

stop concern trolling, whatever your motives. the bill is imperfect. all legislation, past and future, is imperfect.

Democrats must pass the damn bill. it is quite literally the only thing to do.

Liked that Obama also addressed (even if fleetingly) the reason that he rejected the single-payer route. Having taken a look at the House single-payer bill, H.R. 676, all I can say is that I agree with him that as presented, single-payer would have not been a practical solution right now, and would have been politically impossible to pass, especially with its call to raise taxes which is in direct conflict with Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of the country.

That's not to say that having no worries about paying for any medical costs over a lifetime isn't appealing, but there were many more questions raised by the single-payer bill than answered.

That said, come on Democrats, as Obama said, let's get this thing done!

I hope Obama mentioned that the main HCR Bill already passed, as Steve rightly notes lately. Drudge is fired up with apocalyptic terror, his banner (with big H-bomb photo):

SOUND OF THE ATOM SPLITTING: OBAMA NUKE OPTION ON HEALTHCARE
(Also, link that Rove admits error about Iraq! Wow.)

BTW folks, I don't think people like Joe Friday are hoping Dems will lose, from a Rebaglickin perspective. Note he decried the malpractice "reform" (?). Plenty of progressives don't like many of the concessions and absence of public option (well, is the PO in this final effor?) I went to an OFA meeting last night and they are still out there promoting Obama - which I think on the whole is still right to do (especially after this latest show of backbone and resolve.) But there were some angry voices of people feeling let down, and I understand that. It's still worth voting for Obama/Dems, the alternative would be horrible and too much to pay for "making a point" (as c.f. 2000!)

Since no one has mentioned it, I'll say it: This is especially effective after Obama has spent months and untold political capital trying to get the repubs to take the problem seriously, and act responsibly. It's doubly effective after Bunning's tantrum. Repubs love to fan the flames of people are constantly angry. Here we have a thoughtful, reasonable and patient man pushed to anger. In my view, this anger has a legitimacy the other version pretends to.

I enjoyed watching this speech, and I agree Steve, the tone was new. I think he genuinely thought that congressional dems would pull together and handle their business. As we have seen, and he has acknowledged, that was a mistake. The great thing about Obama as a candidate was his ability to adjust his tactics very effectively, and that's what is happening again. Now he needs to keep this tone and not let it go.

Amen!
PASS.THE.DAMN.BILL.

While we need a president to speak like Obama did today, we need even more an engaged grass roots. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. They have talk radio, Fox News, megachurches, and chain e-mails. We have some blogs and MSBNC. The difference in megaphones is huge and it makes our task daunting. Make no mistake: we may win this battle by the skin of our teeth but it's perfectly emblematic of a liberalism so reactive and so fearful that even large congressional majorities can barely pass watered-down legislation.

@Rathskeller on March 3, 2010 at 2:51 PM:

Right on! We need more people like you who are willing to call people out on their ass-plug talking points. My dad told me a story years ago about a bully kid that kept picking on him every day when he got off the school bus. One day, he decided that he had had enough. When the kid started picking on him, he reared back and swung his metal lunch box right across the little shit's skull. The bully ran off crying and never bothered him again. Moral of the story -- time fo liberals and progressives to start swinging our lunchboxes. The right-wing parrots will STFU only when we stand up and call them on their bullshit.

I agree with JoeW and will go one further: Obama couldn't have said these things a year ago or half a year ago or even a few months ago. He can only come out and say "Whew, we spent a year listening to these bozos and now it's time to do something" if he actually waited a year and listened to the bozos. And had he pre-emptively announced last year that he knew Republicans would be jerks making negotiations worthless, Republican criticism would have been accurate and the media would have pounced; making any healthcare reform at all impossible.

That's not to suggest that this was some masterplan all along, as I'm sure Obama would have preferred that Republicans not acted as they did. But...he needed them to act as they did if he wanted to act as he's now acting. That's just how the world works. Only jerks get to strike first, while good guys are required to be fair-minded and stoic. And trying to change that by catapulting the media would have been an exercise in futility.

Obama said: "Since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made."

That is blatantly false.

The White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership ruled that single-payer was "off the table" before the "debate" even began.

And the White House excluded advocates of single-payer from every step of the process so that their arguments could not be made -- at least not where the American people could hear them.

It's all well and good for Obama to reach out to corporate-stooge Republicans to "compromise".

Too bad that the only "reaching out" to progressive Democrats that Obama could do was to hold them at arm's length.

And so the "debate" has gone:

Single-payer is off the table.
But, as a compromise, you can have a public option.

The public option is off the table.
But, as a compromise, you can have Medicare expansion.

Medicare expansion is off the table.
But, as a compromise, you can have an "individual mandate" and "malpractice reform" and a bunch of other 17-year-old Republican proposals.

And we'll pretend that a package of modest regulations of the insurance corporations' most heinous, murderous practices in return for which the American people will be required by law to guarantee and subsidize the insurance corporations' profits, is the equivalent of Social Security, Medicare, the New Deal and the Great Society all rolled into one.

Yes, he has held Progressives at arm's length. Yes, he was very forceful today, but, I still remember him walking into the Summit, patting many Pols on their collective backs, hugging the RepuG Doctor Senator from very Red Oklahoma, then, walking past Senator Wyden of Oregon without even noticing him. Wyden has ruffled the feathers at 1600 many times over health care.

Geez, Mr President, 75,000 people showed up at Tom McCall Park in Portland to hear you speak, and then, voted for you and this is way you treat our senior Senator? How many votes did you receive in the Sooner or Later State?

@SecularAnimist on March 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM:

Personally, I strongly agree with you that universal single-payer is the way to go. Unfortunately, it never had even close to enough votes to pass either the House or Senate, nor was it ever going to have the votes regardless of even the most aggressive campaign on its behalf. We then have to ask ourselves if the legislation before us improves the status quo. If you sincerely believe the answer is "no," then by all means oppose the package and make your case. I will bethe first to applaud you for your stance. I happen to believe that it does improve the situation in many ways, while admittedly falling short in areas. Guys like Kucinich, who repeatedly vote against anything that isn't everything he wants, don't really help us at the end of the day. Yeah, governing is hard, and often means accepting half-measures and other things that are somewhat distasteful, but Social Security and Medicare legislation endured the same tortuous process. Who on our side would say these should be abolished because they are imperfect?

So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America's families and businesses."

Sorry, I stopped giving a shit about insurance companies and how things work for them a long time ago. This whole idea that we have to have some corporate middle man, one which adds NOTHING of value, as a gatekeeper to people getting actual care is odious beyond words.

Fuck the insurance companies. Fuck them long. Fuck them hard. Then roll them over and fuck them again.

We (many people in this country) have this outrageously stupid idea that this has to be "a uniquely American solution." Here's a clue. No, it doesn't. Fix this problem. Fix this problem now.

I support passage of a less than stellar bill because we cannot allow the perfect to defeat what has to be a starting point. Canada did not walk into their current healthcare situation. It started and evolved. We need that start.

If there was any justice, we would evolve into insurance companies going the way of the dinosaur. (Spit)

Why does no one mention that we HAVE to have this happen to remain competitive on a world stage? How come this is not repeated hourly, every day of every week? We cannot compete with Canada. Because of healthcare. We cannot compete with Germany. Because of healthcare. We cannot compete with England. Because of healthcare. We cannot compete with Switzerland. Because of healthcare. We simply cannot compete against any industrialized nation and that will hurt our economy, our businesses and our citizens. Because of healthcare.

Great, Obama was fired up. Woot.

(And yea, I am a crabby ass today.)

robust speeches is good...

but if he's really playing umpteen dimensional chess on hcr, he's still gonna need wooden stakes and holy water agst the Repugnants, and rings in the noses of enough Dims...

He also grossly exaggerated the Republican position. He basically said that they think the way to reduce cost is reduce insurance regulation.

Their actual position is that people should not be forced to buy insurance that covers things added by law makers at the insistence of lobbyist. At the state level this includes everything from hair transplants to chiropractors.

The lack of honesty and constant dismal and exaggeration of opposing view points is going to cost him.

Joe Friday, your characterization of how Obama is planning to incorporate the GOP's ideas is not "just the facts."

"...fake malpractice reform that will cap coverage...." --

Obama: More funding for demonstration projects of alternatives for resolving medical malpractice disputes, including health courts.

Advancing medical liability reform through grants to States

On "horrible horrible health savings accounts which favor the wealthy and are the opposite of preventive care...."

Obama has simply proposed making HSA's available in the Exchange in addition to the subsidized policies already offered. Most likely so that wealthy Republicans can bite off their own noses to spite their faces by buying into them and therefore can congratulate themselves for not becoming "socialists." The actual language is: Ensuring Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are in the Exchange.

In my view, these are not screaming suicide attempts. In fact, it further annihilates the right-wing talking point that the GOP did not have the oppportunity to present their ideas, that Democrats did not listen to their ideas, and that none of their ideas are in the bill. (But they'll lie about that anyway - at least the evidence is in place to dispute the lies.)

SecularAnimist: Your last paragraph nails it.

BTW, the ever-shifting goalposts for liberals remind me of what Alec Baldwin once said about why he signed up for bad movies.

Obviously nobody sets out to make a bad movie, so Baldwin explained it like this (paraphrased from memory) "The producers say, 'Come on. Get on the ship. We're going to the Bahamas.' Then after you pull out of port they tell you, "There's been a change of destination. We're not going to the Bahamas anymore. We're going to Staten Island.'"

People are pissed because Obama campaigned on going to the Bahamas and he just gave a great speech arguing that going to Staten Island is a moral imperative.

We must always decode what politicians say; as we learned from Bill Clinton, it depends on what "is" is.

So here we have a call for an "up or down vote". Who could argue with something so fair? Until you realize that "up or down" in this particular case is code for "reconciliation (i.e. the nuclear option).

If the Dems ram through something as big as HCR, such a massive all-encompassing, and ideologically partisan bill...they'll be paying for it at the voting booths for a generation.

@MsJoanne on March 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM:

Yeah, I'm pretty much sick of the posturing and rhetoric, too. Obama had to effectively neuter the republicans by implementing some of their lame-ass ideas. Otherwise, they would be beating the drum later to th tune of something like "If the Democrats had just done what we suggested, everything would be great" or some similar bullshit. This way, they can't really bitch about anything but wanting to repeal. If they do this, they will lose.

Personally, I would just go with universal single-payer and tell the insurance companies to pack it, but that never had a chance of passing. At least this is a step forward that gives us a chance to build.

A truth that we all know is that passage of this bill marks a beginning, not an end. I would liked to have started farther along with single-payer/PO/Medicare Expansion, but it's the hand we've been dealt, unfortunately.

That said, there are parts of this bill that will not succeed, and Dems will need to have their pruning shears ready the second it becomes justifiable to remove the offending provision and replace it with something that delivers the goods.

Also, as the bill lacks a number of structural safeguards, it will be imperative to have REAL REGULATORS in charge of oversight. Not health industry stooges, but experts who will look to make an example of the first offender to preclude others from trying to play cute with the law. Vigorosly enforcing the law will set the stage for future amendments.

Bottom Line: we all need to start pushing harder than ever once he signs the bill into law.

The Right does not want "the insurance companies to do as they please." We want the market to work in health care as it works in auto insurance, electronics and fast food. The companies in these industries compete for the preference of their consumers, and this is the discipline of the, you know, free market which is what the health care industry has too little of thanks to layer upon layer of regulations. The American people have it very clear, and Steve Benen doesn't: this is not a debate between insurance companies and patients, this is a debate between central planning and a free market.

BTW, I think most people are sympathetic to the (now vastly overused) argument that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. My problem is that the proposals insufficiently lay the foundation for subsequent expansion. The camel's nose is still outside the tent, as it were.

What I really can't stand about the pending HCR legislation is that there is no there there. There is no comprehensive program, like Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. It is a hodgepodge of regulations and subsidies.

As hard as it might be to pass this bill, it will be trivially easy to roll back the "reforms" by opponents. All Republicans would have to do is reduce the subsidies, defund the regulators, and rewrite some regulations.

Meanwhile, the American people will not be able to point to a program and say the equivalent of "keep your hands off my Social Security and Medicare."

Hell, just wait until some bipartisan commission -- possibly with Obama's own stamp of approval -- declares that reductions in subsidies are necessary as part of an entitlement reform "Grand Bargain."

god damn it, pres hopey changey just squeezed another $25 out of me...

we better get some fucking health care... or see some Repugnants spontaneously combust or something...

Rathskeller.

“it's not juvenile”

Reread your post.

“Democrats must pass the damn bill.”

Why would I want the Democrats to pass a horrible bill ?

Carlos Aguilar is absolutely right. state level mandates tell you "if you want insurance, you have to buy x, y, and z" even if all you really want (or can afford) is t, u, and v. then obama pulls this formulation out of butt about what constitutes "real insurance". as with most liberal arguments is not based on anything real, just a rhetorical device with no fixed meaning in reality, brought to you by a trial lawyer. oh, and please get over this absurd notion that health care is a "right". id rather spend a trillion dollars over the next 10 years making sure that no one gets murdered or raped than to ensure that people have access to the most advanced medical care in the world regardless of how productive they are or whether they can afford it. silly liberals enterain so many childish notions easily disproven by history.

We have $1 trillion + deficits as far as the eye can see and this incompetent moron of a President wants to increase entitlements!

This is INSANITY!

Little is done to control costs... other than "cutting" Medicare to pay for.. another entitlement.

This snake oil salesman, community organizing hack is destroying this country.

One giveaway and handout after another... paid for with our KIDS money.

Ah, the smell of troll flop-sweat, how sweet it is.

One giveaway and handout after another... paid for with our KIDS money.

Funny, I thought you conservos revered Reagan and Bush, the most recent presidents who presided over "one giveaway and handout after another."

What's that? You weren't talking about them, because giveaways to corporations and military contractors are just peachy, but legislation designed to improve the country and bring us into the 21st century is wrong somehow?

After both your heroes succeeded in destroying the American economy, it took a Democrat to come in and clean up their messes. So why don't you just shut up and let us clean up your mess again.

Carlos Aguilar, regardless of sand-box theorizing, the set of private health insurers doesn't work well for people. That is what they actually observer, you know "evidence" instead of "faith" in ideological theories. Maybe the regulation can sometimes make it worse, but we gave them exemption from anti-trust and whatever else their lobbyists could ask - and the result sucked. Get that?

God Help Us: OK, control costs - that the providers charge us. How to do that? Don't blame Obama, he isn't asking the high prices for health care or for insuring (sort of) it.

Isn't it funny how libertarian types have to either pretend something is desirable even if we know it sucks, or say it "would" be great if only yadda - since no one in the world actually has such a laissez faire (lousy fare!) system, because ... we know it sucks.

And, john: the trader types who make the most money, aren't productive at all (indeed, probably cause net utility loss in the economy.) The people who get paid the lowest mostly do the most proportional to their pay than anyone else.

http://amerpundit.com/2010/03/03/video-obama-opposed-reconciliation-for-health-care/

""The first clip comes from election night 2004, when a newly-elected Senator Obama announced that a sixty-vote majority should be required to pass any item on the agenda. Because after all, that’s the way you ensure an American agenda — not a Republican or Democrat agenda — gets passed.

The next clip comes from the “Change to Win” convention in 2007, where candidate Obama reaffirms that a sixty-vote majority will be needed to pass any legislation through the US Senate. In fact, he insists that any legislation that lands on his desk have been passed by such a margin.

Then we have a radio interview from the same year, in which candidate Obama specifically rules out the passage of legislation by “fifty-plus-one” margins. You can eke out a victory with “fifty-plus-one”, Obama says, but “then you can’t govern.” He then explicitly rules out passing health care legislation by a simple majority.""

----------
"Democrats have to lie to be Democrats" -Limbaugh

OK - I get it that it's nice to give people health care or health insurance or any other nice thing, but aren't there any progressives that worry about constitutional limitations on government and what it means to throw them away? This is not about a public good. It is about private goods for many people. Is this too complicated for people to understand?

aren't there any progressives that worry about constitutional limitations on government and what it means to throw them away?

Absolutely. But we worry more about people who get all their "news" from Fox and actually think -- or are willing to pretend they do -- that using reconciliation (after nearly every Congress has used it, mostly Republican majorities) is "throwing away constitutional limitations on government." We worry about the ignorant and the perennially dishonest. Oh, my, yes, we do.

What bill?

Show me exactly what I should ask my congressman to support. Is is the House bill, or the Senate bill"? Or like both, is it a bill being done behind closed doors with deal making.

A " majority vote" is what the President, yet that has been taken by the American voter and a majority don't want ObamaCare. Does it matter....nothing matters but the fulfillment of a far left agenda before Obama loses his majorities in November. The Democrats know it is gong to happen. It is the only reason to push so hard to force this on the country.

If you really want to know why the cost of health insurance is so high, just look at the regulations. For example the state in which I live requires that pregnancy be covered under all health insurance policies issued. Sounds good but it is unrealistic. My spouse who went through menopause several years ago can't buy a policy that doesn't cover pregnancy. If you live in my state you can't buy a policy for your five year old that doesn't cover pregnancy. As I understand it, this was an attempt to right a wrong buy are esteemed representatives in the state, but the unintended consequences cause the cost of all insurance premiums to rise. How many more of these little oops's are contibuting to the increasing cost of insurnace?

The unsuccessful in life and love (and resentful and accusatory about it), fat, pasty-white guys who make up Real Clear Politics' sad-sack audience have arrived, I see.

So here we have a call for an "up or down vote". Who could argue with something so fair? Until you realize that "up or down" in this particular case is code for "reconciliation (i.e. the nuclear option).

Um, no, actually, it's not. The "nuclear option," which is not currently on the table, was the threatened removal of the filibuster. Personally, I think the "nuclear option" *should* be on the table, but it's not; all we have is reconciliation, which is a perfectly normal procedure that has been used time and time again, mostly be Republicans.

If the Dems ram through something as big as HCR, such a massive all-encompassing, and ideologically partisan bill...they'll be paying for it at the voting booths for a generation.

Every single one of your assertions is false:

1. They won't be passing HCR by reconciliation. HCR *has already passed* the Senate. They will, instead, pass some budget tweaks via reconciliation, using it just as it was intended to be used.

2. The bill is neither particularly massive nor "all-encompassing." In fact, it's not even close. Had the bill contained something like "Medicare for all," you might have a point. It doesn't and you don't.

3. The bill is not particularly "ideologically partisan," as every damn thing in it has been proposed or voted for by Republicans in previous years. It is, in every sense of the words, a moderate, centrist bill, which is why you see so many progressives, including some on this thread, pissed off. Again, had the bill contained "Medicare for all," you might have a point. It doesn't and you don't.

4. When voters are asked about the individual items in the bill, overwhelmingly these items are *popular*. Once it passes and voters realize that all of this scare talk from morons like you is completely false, Democrats will suffer little to no backlash and Republicans, much to their chagrin, will be left out in the cold.

What Americans really want is total deregulation of health insurance. Trust me.

mnemos, what constitutional limit are you speaking of? While you're at it, tell me what freedoms you're losing, since that is another famous bullshit bullet point. (Alan Colmes did a bang up job on that one the other day. Response by typical Fox moron talking head: Uh Uh Uh.)

Dude, turn off the Fox. Mind numbing propaganda does little for a healthy mind.

Either define/explain what you're referring to or shut the hell up.

roger webb. it's the Senate bill with improvements. It's almost like you're not paying attention. You might want to read it before you come here and look like an idiot.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

(here's a hint, since you appear to be a bit intellectually challenged. Click on the link to the PDF.)

If you really want to know why the cost of health insurance is so high, just look at the regulations.

Oh, garbage. This is a silly assertion, which is why you can't even be bothered to try to defend it, other than with a meaningless anecdote wholly unsupported by anything resembling real data. Come back when you've got something meaningful to contribute.

What bill?

The Senate bill, moron; it's the only bill on the table.

Show me exactly what I should ask my congressman to support. Is is the House bill, or the Senate bill"? Or like both, is it a bill being done behind closed doors with deal making.

ROFL.... You mean like every other bill that Congress has ever passed? Man, you really *are* a moron, aren't you?

A " majority vote" is what the President, yet that has been taken by the American voter and a majority don't want ObamaCare.

ROFL.... You do realize that this is simply nonsensical, right? First of all, American voters don't vote on legislation; we vote for Representatives and Senators who vote on our behalf. Don't like that? Amend the Constitution. Second, when voters are asked about the specific provisions in the bill, they approve of them, often overwhelmingly. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's life out here in reality. You should join us here someday.

OK - I get it that it's nice to give people health care or health insurance or any other nice thing

Um, no, you don't get it, obviously, since that's not what's being discussed. Why don't you run along and play and let the adults have their discussion?

but aren't there any progressives that worry about constitutional limitations on government and what it means to throw them away?

Nope, because no such Constitutional limitations apply and none are being "thrown away". Like I said, you obviously don't get it.

This is not about a public good. It is about private goods for many people. Is this too complicated for people to understand?

ROFL... Oh, the irony....

****
it's the Senate bill with improvements
****

And since one of those improvements is the repeal of the buy outs to Nebraska and Louisiana ...
Partial repeal is a valid use of reconciliation.

If partial repeal is a valid use of reconciliation ...
TOTAL repeal is a valid use of reconciliation.

So if the republicans can regain control of House, Senate and Presidency in 2012 ...
Reconciliation is a valid way for them to repeal the ENTIRE bill.
With no filibuster.

And THAT is the up to the voters.

Beware you may reap what you sow.

We have $1 trillion + deficits as far as the eye can see

Yup, caused by Bush's policies. Funny how you didn't object when those policies were enacted and those deficits started building, and our national debt was doubled.

and this incompetent moron of a President wants to increase entitlements!

Why no, actually, he doesn't, for the simple reason that the bill mostly doesn't deal with entitlements. That would be the "Medicare for All" bill that didn't even get brought to the table. In any case, since the HCR bill is completely paid for and reduces the overall deficit, you should be happy, right? Funny how you forgot to mention that.

Little is done to control costs... other than "cutting" Medicare to pay for.. another entitlement.

So we can count on your vote to back "Medicare for All," which will control costs? Thanks ever so.

One giveaway and handout after another... paid for with our KIDS money.

None of which even come close to the giveaways and handouts that the Bush administration passed. Funny how you didn't mention that.

And since one of those improvements is the repeal of the buy outs to Nebraska and Louisiana ... Partial repeal is a valid use of reconciliation.

Well, duh.

If partial repeal is a valid use of reconciliation ... TOTAL repeal is a valid use of reconciliation.

Nope, not even close, but thanks for playing. Just as passage of the whole bill would not be a valid use of reconciliation, so, too would repeal of the whole not be a valid use of reconciliation and would not be allowed under the rules of the Senate. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

You can, of course, repeal those items that were passed by reconciliation, or just let them expire. Good luck with that.

So if the republicans can regain control of House, Senate and Presidency in 2012 ... Reconciliation is a valid way for them to repeal the ENTIRE bill.

Nope, sorry. Only in your fevered imagination.

It seems quite evident that people spptng this bill have NOT READ IT. I've read the bills and the CBO docs. Practically every sentence out of O's mouth today was a lie. In my life of 60 yrs I have NEVER encountered anybody more willing to look right into the camera and tell one lie after another. To borrow O's phrase it's "unprecedented."
If you don't have it in you to read the bills, read the CBO scoring of the Manager's Amendment. It's about 40 pages long and IN THE EXPLANATORY LANGUAGE spells out the incredible disaster this bill is going to be for generations to come.

The Right does not want "the insurance companies to do as they please." We want the market to work in health care as it works in auto insurance, electronics and fast food.

There are two points to be made here:

1. Each of these industries, particularly automobile insurance, is heavily regulated.

2. That's what the current bill does! "Medicare for All" and the public option were both removed. All health care is provided by private providers, as is damn near all of the insurance.

The companies in these industries compete for the preference of their consumers, and this is the discipline of the, you know, free market which is what the health care industry has too little of thanks to layer upon layer of regulations.

Oh, garbage. The reason we don't have a "free market" in the health insurance industry is that a) there is no such thing in the U.S. and b) there is such concentration of the industry that most of the people in the U.S. have no real choice.

The American people have it very clear, and Steve Benen doesn't: this is not a debate between insurance companies and patients, this is a debate between central planning and a free market.

What utter nonsense. Can't you guys even *try* to come up with a coherent argument?

It seems quite evident that people spptng this bill have NOT READ IT.

ROFL.... Oh, the irony. Judging from this post, neither have you.

I've read the bills and the CBO docs. Practically every sentence out of O's mouth today was a lie.

Really? Then surely you can name one, and point to the specific provisions in the bill that make it a lie. We eagerly await your pearls of wisdom.

If you don't have it in you to read the bills, read the CBO scoring of the Manager's Amendment. It's about 40 pages long and IN THE EXPLANATORY LANGUAGE spells out the incredible disaster this bill is going to be for generations to come.

Was that the CBO scoring that pointed out that this will reduce the deficit? That it will cover the overwhelming majority of uninsured Americans? That it will make insurance affordable to the overwhelming majority of Americans? That CBO scoring?

ROFL... I just love a partisan moron who doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about and just rattles on and on with the talking points he's heard elsewhere.

President Obama's speech can be summarized as follows: Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Well done Benen!

In Obama's "rope-a-dope" strategy, this is akin to the moment in Zaire, when Ali came off the ropes and started dancing. Foreman had punched himself out and was exhausted---as are the Republicans today.

Barring something completely unexpected (more unexpected than a Republican Senator from Massachusetts), the bill should be on Obama's desk before the Easter recess.

F#ck healthcare, let's have another war! It's the economic engine that can't!

Tax cuts for the rich! Privatized medicare!

Man, I love this thread. It's not often that the real wingnuts have the courage to show up here. Too bad they aren't smarter than our standard trolls.

http://www.thesubstratum.com/general-politics/health-care-general-politics/rule-by-tyranny-senator-byrds-d-wv-thoughts-on-reconciliation/

Robert Byrd quote-(the Dem that wrote the rule for reconciliation)

""Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years.""

"Government stimulates the democrat party."
-Limbaugh

@JohnR22 on March 3, 2010 at 3:39 PM

So here we have a call for an "up or down vote". Who could argue with something so fair? Until you realize that "up or down" in this particular case is code for "reconciliation (i.e. the nuclear option).

You're either misinformed or lying. The "nuclear option" has nothing to do with reconciliation. It concerned the filibuster of judges during the Bush Administration.

Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process.

That might actually be a compelling argument if that were what was being proposed. Alas for you, it's not. All that's on the table are a few budgetary tweaks, all of which are fully in line with what reconciliation has been used for in the past. HCR has already passed the Senate.

Next?

Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process.

""That might actually be a compelling argument if that were what was being proposed. Alas for you, it's not. All that's on the table are a few budgetary tweaks, all of which are fully in line with what reconciliation has been used for in the past. HCR has already passed the Senate.

Next?""

Sorry...I am speaking on Byrd's behalf here. His quote, not mine. Gee...will he then be a typical dem and turn around and vote for it? Just curious

Some of the people here are idiots. Sure pass the bill with the Cornhusker kickback and the LA purchase. This is the first step to a single payer system the Dems have always wanted including Obama. We can not afford the entitlements we have now with social security and medicare so what is one more entitlement? I am sure we can cover an additonal 31 million people and our costs will go go up. Makes sense as long as you have a liberal public education. The only way to save our selves and our healthcare system is to have the patient responsible for more of the costs. People will do hours and hours of research and vist three or four stores to buy a new TV or a new car but think nothing of what an office visist costs or an Xray. When is the last time you asked what an Xray cost and searched for a cheaper one or asked if it was truly necessary? Our freedoms as an individual in this country are being taken from you right before your eyes and most do not even recognize it. Give me the choice of paying for my own heathcare and not having to rely on a governamnt beurocrat to determine mine or my families fate with regards to healthcare. Already more doctors are not taking medicare because the goverments way of "reducing" cost is to decide for you and your doctor how much something should cost. This whole system, just like the post office, public education is screwed up so lets let our governemnt screw it up even more.

PaulB, no kidding!

I often wonder if they actually believe the stuff they spew out...if Fox has done such a smash up job that they really, truly believe that crap, or if they are being paid to post crap like that.

It's a very sad statement if the former (and a disgusting broaching on treasonous one, if the later).

Sorry...I am speaking on Byrd's behalf here. His quote, not mine.

Nope, sorry, you don't get to play those silly games. You were quoting Byrd, not with reference to the matter under discussion, but on a completely different subject. The quote was not even close to being relevant because the legislation that is being considered for reconciliation is not what you pretend it is.

Gee...will he then be a typical dem and turn around and vote for it? Just curious

Probably. Why shouldn't he? The bill that will be passed via reconciliation is *not* HCR, no matter how much you would like to pretend it is. Accordingly, it will be considered using the rules of reconciliation just as they have been applied time and time again.

Next?

Pass the bill! And then try to make up some lie on how we're going to pay for all of it.
Time to get off this sinking ship.

I often wonder if they actually believe the stuff they spew out...

Probably. Look at "Dalai Bama." The evidence to date suggests that he really is that dumb. I love how he tried to pretend that Byrd was actually talking about the health care reform proposal currently being discussed.

Pass the bill! And then try to make up some lie on how we're going to pay for all of it.

ROFL.... Q.E.D. Moron, the non-partisan CBO has already pointed out that the bill is fully paid for and that it will, in fact, reduce the deficit. You really should try doing your homework before posting here. We tend to not suffer fools gladly.

Obama, Obama he's our man, if he can't do it, nobody can!

I've had it with you liberals ruining this country. I am leaving this nation. No, don't try and stop me. My mind is made up.

Massuchusetts doesn't want ObamaCare.
And neither do MOST of the rest of us.

I am happy with my catastrophic coverage, which Obama lied about when he said I could keep my current coverage.

AMERICA DOESN'T WANT IT !! Are you guys deaf?

Some of the people here are idiots.

If the shoe fits....

Sure pass the bill with the Cornhusker kickback and the LA purchase.

You're a bit out-of-date. That bill has already passed the Senate. The bill that is being discussed for reconciliation will remove, for example, the Cornhusker kickback, just as you appear to want. Aren't you delighted?

This is the first step to a single payer system the Dems have always wanted including Obama.

Gee, that must be why all mention of an expansion of Medicare or a public option were removed from the bill. Thanks ever so for setting us straight.

We can not afford the entitlements we have now with social security and medicare so what is one more entitlement?

Gee, then aren't you happy that a) the bill doesn't provide a new entitlement and b) the bill is fully paid for? Glad we could take care of that.

I am sure we can cover an additonal 31 million people and our costs will go go up.

If you meant "not" go up, nobody here is claiming that. What we are claiming is that there will be some overall cost savings from some elements of the bill and that everything else is fully funded. Got any substantive objections or did you just want to make a fool of yourself?

Makes sense as long as you have a liberal public education. The only way to save our selves and our healthcare system is to have the patient responsible for more of the costs.

LOL.... Makes sense as long as you have no education. Gee, that must be why every other major industrialized nation spends far less than we do, contains costs and growth better than we do, and gets outcomes that are equal to or better than ours. Oh, wait.... what was that you were saying again?

Give me the choice of paying for my own heathcare and not having to rely on a governamnt beurocrat to determine mine or my families fate with regards to healthcare.

Yes, because an insurance company bureaucrat intent on making a profit and minimizing claims can do such a better job. Oh, wait....

This whole system ... is screwed up

How about that. You actually got one thing right!

Massuchusetts doesn't want ObamaCare.

ROFL... What's hilarious about this idiotic statement is that Massachusetts already has something that fairly closely resembles "ObamaCare." (Funny how it's ObamaCare, when he didn't write any of it.) Guess what, Massachusetts does indeed want ObamaCare. It's popular and they don't want to see it repealed, just as will be the case with the current Democratic proposals when the pass Congress.

And neither do MOST of the rest of us.

Sorry, wrong again. When the polls ask about the specific provisions of the bills under discussion, the voters overwhelmingly approve. They don't like "ObamaCare" because they've been listening to people like the trolls on this thread who don't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about.

I am happy with my catastrophic coverage, which Obama lied about when he said I could keep my current coverage.

No, actually, he didn't lie, which is why you can't defend this silly assertion.

AMERICA DOESN'T WANT IT !! Are you guys deaf?

Gee, you mean that saying something in ALL CAPS makes it true? Cool! AMERICA WANTS IT!! ARE YOU DEAF? Wow, it, like, totally works, man!

Come on, guys. Someone give me a real challenge, not just a regurgitation of talking points that were knocked down weeks ago. This is pathetic. Can't any of your so-called conservatives or libertarians come up with anything even remotely resembling reality?

The "CornHusker Kickback" is now being offered to EVERYBODY. The we can run the printing presses to make more money. And we can all stand in line at the doctor behind all of the "newly insured" people. The bill doesn't create more supply, just more demand.

Liberals are the worst kind of morons.

Paul B.,
You know that Obama has promised that the healthcare bill will not add to the deficit.

You know that he promised that I can keep my current coverage.

These are simple facts, Paul.
Denial is not an argument.

The "CornHusker Kickback" is now being offered to EVERYBODY.

ROFLMAO.... You do realize that this statement is flatly false, don't you? I mean, it's not even close to being true. This is one of the funniest things I've read on this thread.

Liberals are the worst kind of morons.

ROFL.... Nope, this is funnier.

You know that Obama has promised that the healthcare bill will not add to the deficit.

Yup. And the CBO backs that up. In fact, it reduces the deficit.

You know that he promised that I can keep my current coverage.

Yup, that, too, is true.

These are simple facts, Paul. Denial is not an argument.

Couldn't have said it better, myself. Those are simple facts and you are, alas, in denial, which is why you can't even be bothered to try to defend your silly assertions.

I wonder if Massey even has the foggiest idea what the "Cornhusker Kickback" actually is?

@Mart - Thanks for the reply, but personally I think the whole reconciliation/not reconciliation thing is a farce - not relevant. The whole concept of federal government providing private goods to citizens for no reason is a problem. The Constitution basically forbids the federal government getting involved in this sort of thing. Infrastructure, fine, those are public goods. Treatment for disease, there is no way to call that a public good - it is strictly private.

Fun though it's been knocking down these regurgitated talking points, it's time to get out and about. I'll be back later to see what new silliness has spewed forth from whatever base these trolls originate from. I can hardly wait.

Paul, denial is not an argument.
You lose....again.

Who left the troll beacon on?

The whole concept of federal government providing private goods to citizens for no reason is a problem.

Good thing that isn't what's under discussion here, then, isn't it?

The Constitution basically forbids the federal government getting involved in this sort of thing.

No, actually, it doesn't. That's a rather tortured reading of the Constitution, an interpretation that was shot down by the Supreme Court decades ago and reaffirmed many times since.

Infrastructure, fine, those are public goods. Treatment for disease, there is no way to call that a public good - it is strictly private.

Um, you do realize that this argument makes absolutely no sense, right? You simply cannot come up with a coherent theory under which one of those is strictly private and the other is strictly public, as both of these are utilized by private individuals for private good, just as both offer public benefits (e.g., the prevention of horrific epidemics in the latter case).

In any case, it doesn't matter. The federal government is not providing "treatment for disease" with the proposals currently on the table.

Paul, denial is not an argument.

ROFL.... Tom, dear, you made the assertions. It's up to you to defend them. Alas, you failed to do so. I shot down your first assertion using the scoring of the CBO. I'm not going to bother to shoot down your second because you failed to point to a single point in the actual bill that backed it up. When you do so, I'll be happy to take it on. Alas for you, you cannot, since you're simply making shit up.

You lose....again.

ROFL.... Whatever....

4. When voters are asked about the individual items in the bill, overwhelmingly these items are *popular*. Once it passes and voters realize that all of this scare talk from morons like you is completely false, Democrats will suffer little to no backlash and Republicans, much to their chagrin, will be left out in the cold.

This canard, which I see oft-repeated, is especially worth singling out.

The logical fallacy at work here should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Yes, certain elements of the Senate bill are popular, but the bill is the sum of its parts...and the overall package is vastly unpopular.

It's like citing the popularity of the Homebuyer Tax Credit as evidence Americans love the entire tax code. It's absurd.

Who left the troll beacon on?

Probably cross-referenced on a right-wing or libertarian blog. I suspect the latter. I can't say that I'm impressed with their knowledge of the issues nor with their ability to hold a reasoned debate, Mr. Massey's posts being a classic example.

They are funny, though, particularly with their bull-headed insistence on their own version of reality, damn the actual facts.

The whole concept of federal government providing private goods to citizens for no reason is a problem

Well, there you and the rest of the world part ways, because most of us think there is a reason: the state has an interest in not letting its citizens die in the gutter like dogs when it's perfectly achievable to prevent it. I will leave aside for a moment the fact that you're too confused to distinguish between state-provided healthcare and state-led insurance reform for an intact private HC system.

I'll simply say that would be amusing to watch you lose your health insurance, be unable to procure or afford more due to a preexisting condition or coverage that's out of your financial reach (like all half-informed glibertarians, you foolishly believe it can never happen to you), and die a slow and exceptionally painful death from a preventable disease. Amusing, but I still can't quite wish for it, because even a citizen whose brain functions like a dog's deserves better than that.

This canard, which I see oft-repeated, is especially worth singling out.

Actually, it happens to be quite true, which means that the word "canard" is, wait for it, a canard.

The logical fallacy at work here should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Of course, those of us with full brains know that there is no such logical fallacy at play here.

Yes, certain elements of the Senate bill are popular

Yup, including *all* of the major provisions.

but the bill is the sum of its parts...and the overall package is vastly unpopular.

The fallacy here, alas, is yours. You are assuming perfect knowledge of the overall bill and its various components. We know quite well, as demonstrated by the polls, that most voters *don't know what is in the bill*. Hell, even those of you arguing against the bill on this very thread don't know what is in the bill!

When the voters learn what is actually in the bill, they like it. Deal with it.

Nice try, though. At least you did a little better than your cohorts. Next?

The bill doesn't create more supply, just more demand.

And more demand creates jobs!

Amazing how that works.

PaulB, you are ON FIRE! Definitely one smoking hot dude!

Kick some troll ass, babe! WOO HOO!!

Of course, those of us with full brains know that there is no such logical fallacy at play here.

Nope, the fallacy is yours, my friend...you're just not as smart as you think you are. People love all the major provisions? False. um, mandate, anyone? Yep, that one polled really well last I saw - and the success of the overall program hinges on the mandate, so it's not exactly an ancillary provision.

It's the interplay of all the things people love - and all the things they hate - that matters, and that determine overall popularity.

Probably cross-referenced on a right-wing or libertarian blog. I suspect the latter

Real Clear Politics, as was previously explained in this thread.

Thank you PaulB! Any chance of you replacing Cokie Roberts for, or say, forever? Or Dick Gregory; whichever is easier.

Stop this train; I wanna get off!

My gosh, PaulB! You sure did eat your Wheaties this morning! Thank you for your cogent responses!

Dalai Bama: Obama *tried* to get some Republicans on board, and *actually succeeded* in passing a bill with 60 votes - remember? The current work is fixing it up. Why don't your people try harder to be rational, mature, work for the public interest instead of obstructionists?

As for the government making people buy a private good: they wouldn't have had to, if the public option hadn't been brick-walled by the same people complaining about the forcing (which may indeed not be kosher, let's not indulge certitude about that.)

Nope, the fallacy is yours, my friend...you're just not as smart as you think you are.

LOL.... Oh, the irony...

People love all the major provisions? False. um, mandate, anyone? Yep, that one polled really well last I saw

Yup, actually, it did, once it's explained, just as everyone agrees on and supports the need for everyone to have some minimal automobile insurance. Funny how that *existing insurance mandate* gets conveniently ignored by those like you. Next?

It's the interplay of all the things people love - and all the things they hate - that matters, and that determine overall popularity.

Nope, it's the *knowledge* of everything that matters. And you cannot defend against this because you know damn well that few voters have full knowledge of what's in these proposals.

As I already pointed out, you and your cohorts on this thread continue to make my case. You are blog commenters, putting you head and shoulders above most individuals in terms of your overall interest and knowledge, and most of *you* don't know what's in the bill! "The Cornhusker kickback is being offered to everybody!" Q.E.D.

Like I said, though; you're doing better than any of your buddies are doing, so at least you've got that going for you.

PaulB,

And since one of those improvements is the repeal of the buy outs to Nebraska and Louisiana ... Partial repeal is a valid use of reconciliation.

Well, duh.

If partial repeal is a valid use of reconciliation ... TOTAL repeal is a valid use of reconciliation.

Nope, not even close, but thanks for playing. Just as passage of the whole bill would not be a valid use of reconciliation, so, too would repeal of the whole not be a valid use of reconciliation and would not be allowed under the rules of the Senate. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

You can, of course, repeal those items that were passed by reconciliation, or just let them expire. Good luck with that.

So if the republicans can regain control of House, Senate and Presidency in 2012 ... Reconciliation is a valid way for them to repeal the ENTIRE bill.

Nope, sorry. Only in your fevered imagination.

*******

Your responses were YOUR viewpoint.
If the Republicans take back the House, Senate, and presidency ... whose logic are they going to follow.
Yours?
Or mine?

let's see ... they regained everything they lost in just 4 years and really really wanna kill the whole bill. A bill THEY feel was jammed through wrongly.

Yeaaaaaaa they will follow YOUR logic.

Nope.
If it is *improved* via budget reconciliation you better not just hope they do not regain complete control come 2012 ... you better make sure the American people do not have the opportunity to have a "2004 moment" ...
because if they do ...

The entire healthcare bill WILL be repealed using the logic above. And post-election, there will be nothing you can do to stop it.

Outstanding.
Forceful, straightforward, understandable, clear, thoughtful, well-reasoned, and seriously substantive and persuasive.

Outstanding.

This, today, may be the high-water mark of the Republican Party in American politics. It may well be all downhill from here (recognizing, of course, that there will inevitably be some Republican gains in the November midterm elections, after the last two massive electoral wipeouts).

Pass the damn bill!

Posted by: PaulB on March 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM

"I just love a partisan moron who doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about and just rattles on and on with the talking points he's heard elsewhere."

ROFL...Oh, the irony

PaulB - kudos, that was a tour de force.

"He also spent some time outlining exactly what his proposal is all about, including the notion that reform would give Americans "more control over their health care,"

This doesn't even make sense. How can REQUIRING everyone to buy something whether they want it or not give them "more control".

Please. On top of that, what Leftists really want is Single Payer - which does more to limit control over your own health care than any other policy.
Ridiculous.

Your responses were YOUR viewpoint.

No. This is the rule of law and the rules of the Senate. There are matters that can be covered by reconciliation and there are matters that cannot. There are unquestionably some gray areas; the entire HCR bill is not one of them. You cannot do this. Period.

If the Republicans take back the House, Senate, and presidency ... whose logic are they going to follow. Yours? Or mine?

Well, personally, I would hope they would follow the law, but that's just me.

let's see ... they regained everything they lost in just 4 years and really really wanna kill the whole bill. A bill THEY feel was jammed through wrongly.

Uh-huh ... against a president who is going to veto their legislation and against voters who are going to be very unhappy when such things as rescission, aid to help pay for insurance, denial based on pre-existing conditions, health insurance exchanges, certain minimum health coverage standards, Medicaid support, etc., go bye-bye. Talk about political suicide, even if they can do it, which they cannot. Sorry.

The entire healthcare bill WILL be repealed using the logic above. And post-election, there will be nothing you can do to stop it.

ROFL.... Dear heart, you have never employed logic in your discussion here. That's "logic," not logic. As for post-2012 election, I'm quite happy to wait that long. Here's the thing: voters *like* things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like, and they are going to like a hell of a lot of the provisions of this bill, which is why Republicans are trying so damn hard to stop it and why so few of them are willing to seriously discuss actual repeal. So all I can say to you is, "Bring it on."

First, don't ask for my email address.

Second, after the vote, publish the recorded votes of our beloved Congress critters not only at thomas.gov but in our nation's major newspapers.

Let's see then what "the American people" in the majority really want.

I know that I want our dysfunctional health care system (if one can deign to call it that) FIXED.

Ready? Get set! On your mark ....

This doesn't even make sense. How can REQUIRING everyone to buy something whether they want it or not give them "more control".

Only if you refuse to turn your brain on. Today, tens of millions of people have no choice whatsoever, much less "control." With this bill, those people will actually have a choice again, will be able to purchase insurance where formerly they were denied, will be able to afford insurance where formerly they could not, will be given the option of *real* insurance rather than a fake policy full of loopholes that covers practically nothing. And for the rest of us, *nothing changes*. So yes, we will have control.

Damn right we want single payer, since that's the proven best way to control costs and guarantee coverage. And I still get to choose my doctor, still get to decide what my options are when it comes to various medical choices, and the like. Today, you have no control at all. You are at the whim of your employer and your insurance company, assuming that you can even *get* insurance. So tell me again just how good the current system is and how much "control" I have. Just don't ask me to believe it.

Oh, john, your id rather spend a trillion dollars over the next 10 years ....regardless of how productive they are or whether they can afford it
john boy, the ThomsonReuters study showed that given health insurance overhead (including profit) you'll spend that trillion in just 5 years. Also as Krugman pointed out here California alone functions as an experiment of the "sell insurance across state lines" fiction. As Krugman points out: The answer is that insurers compete by doing their best to deny coverage to anyone who might actually need medical care. and And competition hasn't averted a death spiral. So why would creating a national market make things better?

Let me go back and address one of the favorite Libertarian arguments, as advocated above:

more of the costs. People will do hours and hours of research and vist three or four stores to buy a new TV or a new car but think nothing of what an office visist costs or an Xray.

This is the so-called market solution for health care reform. Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?

First of all, only the top few percent of the families in this country have the wherewithal to actually afford health *care*. The overwhelming majority of us have to purchase health *insurance* so, no matter what, there is going to be a layer of bureaucracy between us and the health care provider.

There is simply no way around this; health care costs are too high for the average family to afford on their own. The only question is whether that layer will come from the federal government or from an insurance company. I can and will do due diligence when choosing an *insurance company*, within the limitations of the choices available to me (more on that below). I usually cannot do such due diligence on health care providers, and that is even assuming that my insurance company gives me a choice, which many do not.

Second, when I go to purchase a television, I have access to a vast wealth of information about its cost, its features, its ratings and reviews, and so on. I can see it in the store; I can observe it at a friend's house. *I have no such access to equivalent information about health care,* and insurance companies and health care providers have gone out of their way to prevent me from obtaining such access. The only way for the Libertarian view to work is if such information is readily available.

Third, for more than 2/3 of the country, health insurance is effectively a monopoly, with a sizable majority of the coverage provided by just one or two carriers. Most of the people in the U.S. have little to no choice about which health insurance company to choose.

And, fourth, much ealth care is provided on an emergency basis. If I have a serious accident tomorrow, how can I, or my loved ones, possibly do such due diligence in choosing a health care provider? It's a virtual certainty that I will have no choice at all and that I will be driven to the nearest facility.

In short, the Libertarian utopian "market" solution does not, and cannot, exist anywhere in the real world.

"How can REQUIRING everyone to buy something whether they want it or not give them "more control"
____

Good question. Really. It will give Americans IN THE MAIN more control because the majority of the citizens with insurance will not have to carry those without it. If we don't have to carry people without it, our premiums will drop because the freeloaders are carrying themselves. They're in.

I, and maybe you, are currently paying for freeloaders (for lack of a better word. Sorry). They're called "illegals" by many and there's no denying that some illegals are gaming the system. But I would wager that the vast majority of freeloaders are our own poor homegrown neighbors. I'm not judging them for being poor. These folk deserve our help.

This bill is supposed to help the poor buy into the hc insurance system. And when they're mostly in, prices WILL drop. They'd better drop or the public option is next.

I've worked 30 years in the health care system and I've been privy to the shenanigans. Please don't blow me off.

Tom M, thanks for that link to Krugman's posts. That was new to me.

Thanks for the compliments, everyone. I had a lot of fun with these idiots. Too bad none of them could muster a serious argument. Sadly, the only really serious arguments against the current HCR proposals are from the left, as we, correctly, I think, argue that the current proposals don't go far enough.

Personally, I think they're better than the status quo and that, once passed, a precedent has been set, of greater federal involvement in and regulation of the overall health care market. It's a precedent that Republicans *really* don't want to see set, and a victory that they even more fervently wish to deny Democrats. These arguments are sufficient to get me to join Steve in saying, "Pass the damn bill."

The problems with the current proposals are fixable. The problems with the status quo are not.

Yawn. Get a new act, there. If you had the votes, we'd already have this abomination enacted. But since we're talking about "up and down votes," let's remind the American people that Democrats have not allowed an up or down vote on any proposed Republican amendments. Snowbama just doesn't want you to realize that he has monopolized this show from the get-go.

And if he really wants to spend the next 8 months talking about a health care plan the majority of Americans want killed, be my guest. The more left-wing Kool-Aid suckers who want to walk off the political cliff, the better.

"How can REQUIRING everyone to buy something whether they want it or not give them "more control"
____

Good question. It will give Americans IN THE MAIN more control because the majority of citizens with insurance will NOT have to carry those without it. The reform stipulates no more freeloading. Everybody's in.

I, and maybe you, are currently paying for freeloaders (for lack of a better word. Sorry). They're called "illegals" by many who want to stop the hc reform legislation, and there's no denying that some illegals are gaming the system. But the vast majority are probably our own "homegrown" neighbors. I'm not judging them for being poor or negligent. These folk deserve our help and persuasion.

Among many other things, this legislation is supposed to help the "poor" buy into the hc insurance system. And when they're mostly in, prices will drop. They'd better drop or the public option is next.

I've worked 30 years in the health care system and I've been privy to shenanigans.

Everything "Hey!" said at 10:22. Twenty-five years here. I have worked in the DoD/VA systems, public health and private sector/for profit (HCA). Shenanigans? Got anything stronger? What's 'Shenanigans' to the 10th power?

From John @ 4:02PM
"id rather spend a trillion dollars over the next 10 years making sure that no one gets murdered or raped than to ensure that people have access to the most advanced medical care in the world regardless of how productive they are or whether they can afford it. silly liberals enterain so many childish notions easily disproven by history."

You see, that is the problem. You'd rather spend money locking people up than keeping the populace healthy.

We already spend over $200 billion per year on criminal justice (police, prisons, courts, etc). Despite that spending, we currently have just over 16,000 murders and just under 90,000 rapes per year. There is no reason to think that another $100 billion per year would bring either of those figures down to 0. Both of those have been trending down since they peaked in the 1980s (murder) and 1990s (rape) for complex reasons that seem to have more to do with economics, demographics and possibly environmental regulations reducing childhood exposure to lead than with locking more people up.

On the other hand, various reputable research studies have put the number of people dying each year due to a lack of insurance at between 28,000 and 48,000 per year. There is every reason to believe that having the federal government spend about $1 Trillion over the next 10 years WILL significantly reduce those figures.

When you add in that the proposed bill specifically includes sensible targeted tax increases and spending cuts to offset this outlay and that the CBO and reputable outside analysts confirm it will reduce our budget deficit compared to the status quo, complaints about expensive new entitlements are silly and raise serious questions about the morality of your priorities.

Nice job, PaulB! Normally I'd say dont waste time with these clowns, but you seem to be enjoying yourself so what the hell. It's always nice watching the same stupid talking points being effortlessly dismantled.

Yawn. Get a new act, there. If you had the votes, we'd already have this abomination enacted.

Um, has it escaped your notice that it did, in fact, get approved in the Senate?

But since we're talking about "up and down votes," let's remind the American people that Democrats have not allowed an up or down vote on any proposed Republican amendments.

Why should we do that when it's not true?

Snowbama just doesn't want you to realize that he has monopolized this show from the get-go.

Uh-huh, right... That's why he singlehandledly crafted all of these bills and rammed them through Congress. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

And if he really wants to spend the next 8 months talking about a health care plan the majority of Americans want killed, be my guest. The more left-wing Kool-Aid suckers who want to walk off the political cliff, the better.

Like I said above, bring it on. If Republicans truly believed this, they wouldn't be trying (and lying) so desperately to stop it.

I will note, for the record, that you offered no substantive arguments against anything currently on the table. The reason for this utter failure on your part is left as an exercise for the reader.

Obama is a petty tyrant who is just pissed that he isn't getting his way through the normal Congressional procedures. All the leftists here who say "just pass it anyway you can" would be going crazy if Bush tried something like this. Reconciliation is for budget purposes ONLY. Even Robert KKK Byrd said this, and he invented the reconciliation process. America is becoming a soft tyranny and the people aren't going to take it!

Obama is a petty tyrant who is just pissed that he isn't getting his way through the normal Congressional procedures.

ROFL... I just love how these morons parrot one another and give the same old discredited talking points over and over again, ad nauseam. This talking point is, of course, false, since reconciliation is, in fact, a "normal Congressional procedure."

Reconciliation is for budget purposes ONLY.

Perhaps it has escaped your notice that HCR has *already passed the Senate*, winning 60 votes in the process? And that what is being proposed now is "for budget purposes ONLY"? No? Ah, well, not too surprising. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

America is becoming a soft tyranny and the people aren't going to take it!

Majority rule is "a soft tyranny?" Whodathunkit? And what, pray tell, are you going to do about it? And why on earth do you think that anyone is going to join you other than your fellow morons?

I'm floored by the level of procedural ignorance (when Benen addresses it daily). Regurgitating bullshit right wing rants does not make them true.

PaulB, you have the patience of saints. I'd have told these morons to pack sand long ago. I have limited tolerence for fools and these trolls are quite the fools.

I'm ashamed for my country that this level of ignorance is so rampant. One ass talks about the constitution. And he's wrong. Another talks about procedure and he's wrong too.

When did they stop teaching civics?

MsJoanne, it's not really patience on my part, since these idiots are unteachable. If I thought I could actually reach any of them, I'd have moderated my tone considerably and would actually have been patient. As it is, I decided to have fun with them.

The mistake that all too many make when debating idiots and trolls is taking the debate seriously.