they have pre-wrapped sausages, but they don't have pre-wrapped bacon!

(sorry.)

I think a significant percentage of those polled who object to "back room deals" don't mean reconciliation. They're bothered by the same thing I am: giveaways to the enormously profitable health insurance and pharmaceutical industries in exchange for campaign contributions, not some arcane Congressional procedure.

Let's just say it, loud: As soon as this thing becomes law, it is going to be very popular. And it will immediately be accepted as a good thing for the citizens of this country.

And at that point, all progressives and Democrats need to formally refer to it as "Health-Care-reform-that-passed-without-a-single-Republican-vote" -- in perpetuity.

isn't Dave Weigel the guy who smeared Jane Hamsher and used made up quotes in a recent story? why should we trust anything a proven liar like Weigel says? seriously, how do we know he just didn't make shit up? again.

I think a significant percentage of those polled who object to "back room deals" don't mean reconciliation. They're bothered by the same thing I am: giveaways to the enormously profitable health insurance and pharmaceutical industries in exchange for campaign contributions, not some arcane Congressional procedure.

Yes, but the conservatives among these don't want a public plan, either. Since that was what the negotiation was about, a lack of back-room deals wouldn't have made them any happier.

As soon as the law is signed the Republicans are going to turn their attention to a few glaring weaknesses in the bill insisted upon by deal making Democrats trying to curry favor with Republicans and big business. Democrats need to be prepared to go forward loudly with fixes to those glaring weaknesses. Maybe something like a medicare buy in for folks 60-65. That will relieve a lot of pressure on insurance companies to raise rates. Or maybe moving up the exchanges to this year or early next. That will really put pressure on insurance companies to keep rates down. You know, stuff that would make the bill more successful and would have been part of it if we weren't so hung up on "bipartisanship."

Every thing comes to the point Willy Loman taught his family , at no small cost to his sanity , or ability to provide for his wife and sons .
Now we have progressed , we not only ask about how popular it is but more importantly , is it a low cost tasty delight .
It is sacred to the high priests of murdoch to verify the tasty quality as well as the ability to reveal terrorists .
The heart stopping fear of being caught making sense , a mote in the eye of the hair priests , leads to first rate sausage .
This is how the Parthenon was built , as a clebration of fixed points on the cheap .

Of course the real result of Republicans filibustering is that you have to bribe 10 extra Senators to get anything passed.

I wasn't clear in my previous comment. I support the bill despite my reservations about bending over backwards to please the insurers and Big Pharma. I meant if Republicans run on "reconciliation=treason" in the midterms, it won't do them much good because that's not what most people mean by back room deals. And yes, I agree conservatives wouldn't support the bill in any case -- as they say on TV, deals or no deals.

It just contiinues to show that the longer the Democrats drag this out the harder it is on them. As I've said before House Democrats have been facing the same basic choice for 3 and half months;

1 - Pass the bill and try for some changes/improvements through reconcilliation

2 - Kill the bill

That's it. It's that simple.

it's health care fer gott's sakes, leave go of the sausages...

actually i would guess that the "backroom deals" the public finds so troubling are the costs we had to pay to our own Democrats to back a Democratic initiative. Ben Nelson's deal was an issue that was very "sticky" -- the public ran with that one immediately. As always, the Democrats worst enemies are the Democrats.

isn't Dave Weigel the guy who smeared Jane Hamsher and used made up quotes in a recent story?

No, Dave Weigel is the guy the leader of Progressives for a Republican Majority accused of making up quotes during one of her Beck-like paranoid posts.

I used to like Jane and agree with some of her arguments on HCR, but she's become Larry Johnson to me now.

"Fair Play" is an American- perhaps universal- virtue, and most people prefer to play by the rules.

In politics, however, the opposite is too often the 'rule'- there's even a name for it- Nixonian. . .

Here's how the "sausage-making process" seems to have worked in this case:

1. The insurance corporations negotiated with the Obama administration, and worked with their bought-and-paid-for Senate Democratic stooges to come up with a bill that eliminated any possibility of any kind of public health insurance system, and gave them everything they wanted: they would accept some modest regulation of their worst practices, in return for which the public would be required to guarantee and subsidize their profits.

2. Having gotten everything they wanted from the Democrats, the insurance corporations then deployed their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Republicans, to prevent even that from passing.

The insurance corporations have all the bases covered. This is a win-win situation for them.

"isn't Dave Weigel the guy who smeared Jane Hamsher and used made up quotes in a recent story?"

No, Dave Weigel is the guy who had an *actual audio recording* which backed up his accusations about Hamsher.

really, Weigel has an audiotape of Katherine Serkes telling Weigel that Hamsher is her source for alleged "union thuggery" against Altmire? That's not what Weigel seems to claim on his Quick response, but feel free to keep smearing Hamsher.

Tea Party Activist Working With Firedoglake’s Hamsher on HCR Whip Count

nope, nothing like a smear in that, nope.

Serkes:

"I am trying, perhaps naively, to work on common ground. And we all agree that stoking the insurance companies coffers with a government mandate is just plain wrong. I thought the important point I was making was that that a lot of us- on all sides - want this dead. For a reporter to jump on who called who a “thug” is a piece of minutiae compared to the that.

Bottom line — my apology to Jane. I don’t think it came out the way I meant it, and I never had any intention of giving the impression that she was saying “union thugs.” I did a piss-poor job of trying to say what I meant. She shouldn’t have to take the heat for it. "

I guess this is what Wiegel meant by Hamsher "working with" the Tea partiers. feh!

+

If the RNC wanted the Faux News correct answer for their survey, they needed to hand the job off to "We are a media company" Rasmussen.

actually i would guess that the "backroom deals" the public finds so troubling are the costs we had to pay to our own Democrats to back a Democratic initiative. Ben Nelson's deal was an issue that was very "sticky" -- the public ran with that one immediately. As always, the Democrats worst enemies are the Democrats.
Posted by: zeitgeist

Exactly, now there are some who are going to want something when the next big vote comes. We rewarded the idiots in our lot and by not giving everyone a 'kickback' we essentially penalized the people who were on board.

Are the 'backroom' deals used by the CBO or are those off the official books.

Speaking of idiots, where the hell has the media whore Lieberman been hiding. This has to be the longest amount of time he has w/o bashing the democrats since he went independent.

I wanted to correct an error:
[I]f my 22-year-old cousin can get back onto her parents' insurance plan

Your 22-year-old cousin should still be on her parents' insurance. She can be until she's 25 under current law as long as she is claimed as a dependent. The reform bill would extend this to 26. I believe the House version extended it to 27, but the Senate only increased it by a year.

Ben Nelson's deal was an issue that was very "sticky" -- the public ran with that one immediately.

Oh, come on. "The public" didn't run with it until it went through the Fox News to "people are talking about it" mainstream news churn and it became the latest talking point. The Nelson deal wasn't great, but it was the ordinary sort of horse-trading that has been done to garner votes for decades. Far worse backroom deals were made when Republicans were in charge (ones that delivered goodies to the officeholder or his contributors rather than his constituents) and "the public" didn't run with those. The idea that people are inherently outraged about stuff like this without being prodded by partisans is not supported by evidence.

Still, with plenty of outrage being prodded on the basis both of the supposed substance of the bill and the "backroom deals", it is encouraging to have a poll that shows opposition only taking hold in the case where there is some basis in reality, and not when the outrage is over completely fictional objections to the policy.