Think in terms of the worst case: If the House passes the Senate bill and the Senate does nothing, the basic framework for health reform in in place. It'll be fixed over time regardless.

git that senate bill passed in nine days...then the rumble... sounds like a plan. looks better than it has for some time.

"Think in terms of the worst case: If the House passes the Senate bill and the Senate does nothing, the basic framework for health reform in in place. It'll be fixed over time regardless. "

Simply shoveling money at the insurance companies =/= heath reform framework.

I agree with Kevin Drum, "Let's get on with it."

Congress makes me so mad...

I have heard that House Dems are concerned that Repubs will accuse them of voting for the Ben Nelson's Cornhusker Kickback, etc. if they vote for the Senate bill.

What I haven't heard discussed is what happens after the House votes (we hope) for the Senate bill: 1) the House and Senate are then going to take up the reconciliation bill to fix the Senate bill and 2) we can expect the Repubs to fight against the reconciliation bill as they continue their fight against Healt Care Reform. However, at that point the Repubs in opposing reconciliation will be fighting to maintain the Cornhusker Kickback and the various other unpopular things in the new law. Or the Repubs will have to support reconciliation to get rid of the Cornhusker Kickback. It seems to me that the Repubs are going to be in a fairly difficult position explaining a vote for or against the reconciliation bill.

The public option idea will never die. Without the baggage of the full bill, standing alone, it will only gain more popular support than the very high level of support it already commands. It will be a great issue for Democrats to take back the momentum this fall.

The parlimentarian has now reversed himself saying the republicans misinterpreted his statements. Does anyone know for sure what this means? I take it to mean the House does not need to vote on this bill before the senate makes the needed fixes via reconciliation. That the senate can go ahead and make the changes and pass them via reconciliation and then the House can vote on the senate bill knowing the fixes have already been made and the president can then sign them both. Correct me if I'm wrong on this but I just heard it today on the Hartman program.

"The public option idea will never die. Without the baggage of the full bill, standing alone, it will only gain more popular support than the very high level of support it already commands. It will be a great issue for Democrats to take back the momentum this fall."

I can see the slogan now-
"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice- vote democrat"
"Sure we completely lied last time about the public option but this time we REALLY mean it."

or maybe just

"suckers"

Here's a riddle for bill supporters that wanted a public option-
If you really think this bill will effectively end rescission and get 30 million people health care why did you want a public option? If you think you can do all that without one what more would you possibly get with one? You keep claiming that this bill does everything that could ever need to be done with regard to HCR, so how can you also say there's more you want ed to do?

one of those two statements is a lie, or maybe both.

"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice- vote democrat"

Every once in a while you out yourself by forgetting that only Republicans and Fox devotees say "Democrat" where it should be "Democratic."

"Every once in a while you out yourself by forgetting that only Republicans and Fox devotees say "Democrat" where it should be "Democratic.""

Uh no. A lot of people do. In fact it's the norm.

I am suddenly concerned about the words being used to describe the proper sequence of reconciliation. If a bill is signed into law, it subsequently isn't going to be "reconciled" with anything. If the law is going to be changed, the change is going to be a "revision" whether it takes place in a nanosecond or 10 years later. The change in the law would then be in the form of new law, subject to filibuster in the Senate. I sure hope I'm not hearing some forehead-slapping on this.
Therefore reconciliation implies a reconciling of the House version and the Senate version OF THE SAME BILL, i.e. a bypass of what a House-Senate conference committee would do. To my way of thinking the choice of the word "reconciliation" implies that after a bill passes both chambers but is not yet signed into law, the budgetary differences ONLY can be reconciled with a sidecar 'act' or 'amendment' or 'addendum' or 'whatever' which is then passed by both chambers by simple majorities. The intent is to decrease the chance that last-minute wrangling over money will derail all the non-monetary aspects the chambers have separately agreed upon.
Am I wrong or has the word "reconciliation" been twisted into some nonintuitive meaning within the Senate rules?

Why not put a signing statement on the main bill saying it will only be adopted with a sidecar?

Uh no. A lot of people do. In fact it's the norm.

Not among liberals and progressives. Whoops!

"Not among liberals and progressives. Whoops!"

Yeah actually it is. Not all progressives are PC douchebags.

"Every once in a while you out yourself by forgetting that only Republicans and Fox devotees say "Democrat" where it should be 'Democratic."

So when someone asks your political affiliation, you tell them you are a "Democratic". I can't remember the last time I have seen or heard someone say "vote Democratic".

Calling someone "PC" for asking them to use the correct name...yeah, that's pretty Republican, too.

I'm also guessing from this and pretty much all your conversational choices that you're upwards of 75?

Enjoying your Medicare, troll?

"Calling someone "PC" for asking them to use the correct name...yeah, that's pretty Republican, too."

Getting indignant and self righteous when people use common terms is pretty PC douchebag.

"I'm also guessing from this and pretty much all your conversational choices that you're upwards of 75?"

And as usual you're french kissing your own colon. You were only off by 4 decades, but hey who's counting?

"Enjoying your Medicare, troll?"

I would be if the dems weren't complete pussies. We could have medicare for all by now instead of the piece of shit senate bill.

"If you really think this bill will effectively end rescission and get 30 million people healthcare why do you want a public option? If you think you can do all that without one what more could you possibly get with one? You keep claiming that this bill does everything that could ever need to be done with regard to HCR, so how can you also say there's more you wanted to do?" Tlaloc @ 4:04 PM.

So much BS, so little time...
Possibly because we feel that if someone is mandated to buy healthcare insurance, it would be best if there was a non-profit insurance available that had enough clout to actually ensure a decent deal for those buying it? I know, I just admitted that the present HCIR isn't perfect and won't bring on the Second Coming! So, sue me, I never said it would. That's queries one and two.
Then there's your assertion about what we say the bill does: once again you're making with the projection. "We" have NEVER claimed that the present HCIR is perfect and will never need improvement. YOU, however, are the one who has continually claimed, without any data to back it up, that the bill will be a complete failure and is being enacted solely to fatten the pockets of HC insurance companies, or as you once put it: the "ins cos".

"one of those two statements is a lie, or maybe both."
You might want to re-read the your paragraph quoted above. There's only one string of words in that entire paragraph that might qualify as a "statement". And it's what YOU say OUR position is on HCIR.
Soo tiresome...

""We" have NEVER claimed that the present HCIR is perfect and will never need improvement."

Bull shit. You've claimed ad nauseum that this bill perfectly and instantly resolves the issues of rescission, affordability, availability, and pre-existing conditions. Every god damn time you have claimed that these issues are resolved by this bill regardless of how much evidence to the contrary is put in front of your faces.

Just stop fucking lying!

If you really think this bill does all that then defend your position rather than suddenly claiming you never said what you've said a hundred times a day. We know you've said it. We've all heard you say it time and again. What do you think you'll gain by lying about it now?

You know what? Don't care. Lies seem to be second nature to you guys, so what's the point. You absolutely can't defend your position except by pretending the facts don't exist. So fuck it.

Getting indignant and self righteous when people use [only common among wingers] terms

Grampa, the indignity (yep, I meant to say that) and self-righteousness is all on your side. We were mocking you for outing yourself, you dumb old coot. We're laughing our asses off over here at your repeated slips.

Heading out for the evening. Enjoy your night alone in the rocker caressing your signed photo of John McCain.

Yes, we need health care (actually health cost) reform. But we do NOT need this particular bill which will accomplish only expanded coverage and will fail to deliver on just about everything else it promises. The sad thing is, Obama could have got some really significant incremental reform passed with overwhelming voter support and plenty of republican votes (not because republicans are great guys, but because the widespread voter support would have FORCED the republicans to vote for it). But, nooooo....Obama/Pelosi had to go for the whole enchilada...and a waaaaay Left wing enchilada at that.

Posted by: busted on March 12, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Grampa, the indignity (yep, I meant to say that) and self-righteousness is all on your side. We were mocking you for outing yourself, you dumb old coot. We're laughing our asses off over here at your repeated slips.

======================================

Yeah, I can hear you snickering and tittering. I see a lot of that from you kiddies (under 30)
on-line. Snarky, smartass sneering with little content or thought. I guess that's because most of you sock puppets get your "information" from Stewart and Colbert. Now go cruise some internet porn, sonny.

At the eleventh and half hour, we are starting to get the truth. Yesterday, on the way home, Congressman Stupack related his conversation with Congressman Waxman. Waxman wants the US taxpayer to fund abortion; Stupack does not. Waxman subsequently denied wanting to change decades of US law. After thirteen months, we are expected to believe this is a minor misunderstanding. No one in Congress trusts the Senate to pass such a controversial "side bar" after the bill becomes law. However, if it is within the text, the Parliamentarian has stated that it can not be considered under the rules of reconciliation. The author of reconciliation, Senator Byrd, agrees.
There are not enough votes in the House to fund abortion, and not enough votes in the Senate to defund abortion. The bill will fail.

"...and a waaaaay Left wing enchilada at that."
------------------------------------------------
How precisely is this bill, which is not single-payer, with no public option, a "waaaaaay Left wing" bill? It appears you have no idea what you are talking about. The Senate bill that is being considered is virtually identical to the 1993 Republican HC bill introduced by Chafee. I guess this means that the party of Newt & Delay was a bunch of far-left radicals huh?
----------------------------------------------
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

How precisely is this bill, which is not single-payer, with no public option, a "waaaaaay Left wing" bill? It appears you have no idea what you are talking about.

He doesn't. He's unconvincingly trying to portray a "reasonable Republican." The adjective is utterly wrong but the noun stands.

"If you really think this bill will effectively end rescission and get 30 million people healthcare why do you want a public option?"

For the same reason that opponents of the public option oppose it: the added competition created by a public option will probably reduce the cost of insurance.

If you want to help out your friends at the insurance companies, why don't you send some of your own money to your friends, rather than trying to take money out of my pocket by forcing me to pay more for insurance?

Obamacare is an abomintion and will fail becauseit is bad policy. Most of the country opposes the bill and those who are foolish enough to vote against their constituencies will pay with their careers.

I think that we are missing the forest from the trees.

This bill is not about healthcare reform. Pure and simple, this is a vehicle for a larger goal of bringing socialism (communism) into America. Obama himself said, "Redistribution of Wealth".

The government wants an absolute and total control of everything, Healthcare, Auto Industry, student loans, Banking, commerce, envoirnment (Cap & Trade). You name it.

Now there is work in progress to also co-own the judiciary as well. (remember the recent dressing down of Supreme Court Justices by Obama and the current ongoing spat between Chief Justice Roberts and the White House).

The goal is to have the populace become subject to handouts and make perpetual beggers out of Americans. No more private ownership, private thinking, enterprenurship, risk taking or capital formation.

Once we all become habitual beggers, we will always be on the dole for government handouts and will always vote for Democrats.

The real agenda is to have a captive people who are always dependent on the Government.

Life as we have known is coming to an end. There will be no more "American Dream".