Our political system has many, many flaws. But I am thankful for this feature.

[BzaDem]

There are a lot of people on this board who want to kill the bill. One out of every three threads on this board calls for the bill to be killed (at least on the first page).

The wonderful thing about our political system is that none of the people who want the bill to be killed are going to succeed. Not ONE liberal Senator will vote to sustain a Republican filibuster. Not Sanders, not Brown, not one. And while there may be progressives in the house who will vote against it, not one of them (except maybe DK) would vote against it if they were the deciding vote.

This bill will pass, despite the people here who want the bill to die. It will insure 30 million people despite you. It will cover those with pre-existing conditions at the same rate as those without, despite you. You will fail to kill the bill. Your failure will be on display for all of political history to see. Those public figures who are calling for the bill to be killed will not only fail, but will have to answer for their position once the new system becomes very popular.

To be sure, there are many problems with our political system. The idea that Joe Lieberman or any other Senator can demand provisions removed that 55 other Senators support is a disgrace. The whole idea of a filibuster is a disgrace.

But the one saving grace of our political system is that it separates the irrational people from the rational people. Of all the Democrats in the Senate, not even the most liberal Senator will vote to kill this bill, despite the screaming and moaning here.

(And if you don't believe me, bookmark this thread and we will talk in February.)

[EFerrari]

1. Name calling is not an argument.

[On the Road]

31. Yes, and

a desired outcome is not a "feature" of the political system.

[harun]

2. Bookmark this, w'out a PO or Medicare Buy in there will be NO BILL!

[BzaDem]

3. Done. n/t

[get the red out]

4. Thank you

[lapfog_1]

5. Then the party will die in 2010.

and we will lose the Presidency in 2012.

And the repukes will overturn this POS before much of it even comes into play.

Because those of us that wanted real HCR instead of this bait-and-switch will go away.

[BzaDem]

10. I really doubt it.

We will probably lose lots of seats in 2010 (whether this passes or nothing passes). But I highly doubt we will lose the presidency in 2012. And even if we did, the chances that the Republicans could get 60 seats in the Senate by 2012 are slim to none.

[LynneSin]

14. I also remind myself that we are not the democratic party here at DU

If what was posted at DU and other online blogs were true, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004. Hell I swore the guy had it in the bag but barely came in 4th in the Iowa primaries.

What we DUers tend to forget is that Obama does not represent us, he represents everyone in America (just like George Bush did for 8 years, god forbid).

[BzaDem]

21. That is true.

Obama has a 93% approval among Dems. The other 7% are very overrepresented here. I am just saying I am happy that they are underrepresented in the Senate.

[LynneSin]

29. I would never give Obama an "A" his first year, perhaps a "B-"

but he is my candidate and I support him. Not ready to jump off the cliff, I am a democrat thru good times and bad.

I am ready to support other candidates in the primary. I hope that Lt. Governor from Little Rock runs against Blanche Lincoln.

[lapfog_1]

15. They can cut the funding, under reconciliation. - n/t

[T Wolf]

19. Why would the pukes need 60 Senators? They "accomplished" so much with far fewer, though

they did have the complicity of many so-called Democrats.

It is proven that they only need 50 plus the VP to rule. We know the Dems will never fight them.

[BzaDem]

23. They actually failed to accomplish most of what they wanted to because of the 60 vote rule.

Their main initiative in 2001 is going to expire in 2011 because they didn't have 60 votes. They weren't able to open ANWR. They weren't able to privatize Social Security. They weren't able to enact tort reform. All because they didn't have 60 votes.

[lapfog_1]

27. Absolutely correct.

but they can remove funding from any program under reconciliation. They just can't enact NEW programs.

So yeah, anything in this bill that funds people to buy private insurance, can be removed.

[BzaDem]

30. Here is the reason that won't happen.

The funding can be removed by reconciliation. Even the mandate can probably be removed.

But the ban on charging more for sick people can't be removed by reconciliation (just like the ban can't be enacted by reconciliation).

Without a mandate, the ban will cause an insurance premium death spiral that will price out everyone.

Without subsidies, a mandate is completely unworkable.

[lapfog_1]

32. They will remove funding.

"Deficits are too large!" "Fiscal responsibility!" "Taxes are too high!"

They have to pander to the tea party radicals. They are the power brokers in the Republican party at this point.

They are the activist base that will turn out for even minor elections, call people, send money to candidates, and drive people to the voting booth. Just like the people that YOU'VE been deriding in your posts here are for the Democrats.

They will remove funding and then force the issue through (getting the Blue Dogs to vote with them in the Senate) to completely undo the legislation because "it was an unworkable socialist experiment".

Then the insurance companies can go right back to doing what they were doing.

[FBaggins]

20. THEY don't need 60 seats

Only we do.

[BzaDem]

24. See post 23. n/t

[LynneSin]

11. There are 14 key points that start almost immediately

it was the public option that would not start until 2013-4 but that doesn't exist.

[Tigermoose]

6. Agreed.

"But the one saving grace of our political system is that it separates the irrational people from the rational people."

Absolutely.

[LynneSin]

7. There are things that I still love about this bill even though there are things that piss me off.

One of them is the ability for parents to claim their children up to age 26 on the insurance. My nephew is 19, works 3 part-time jobs and is attempting to take 1-2 classes a semeseter at the local community college. Maybe in 5 years he'll have his life together with a job that provides insurance (or maybe round #2 of HCR will happen), but when this bill is signed he can go back onto his parents insurance (and his parents are fine with this).

I also know that there is a fix for the 'donut hole' in the medicare prescription plan AND the ability for our goverment to negotiate with pharma for their drug prices. This is a huge fix.

There are other benefits too that are much needed. Pre-existing conditions is one of them.

Is the bill perfect? Hell no! But to vote totally against it not only will harm many people who needs those fixes but our way of giving a victory to the teabaggers.

[begin_within]

8. I disagree. Liberals/progressives should exert power now,

not only to either repair or replace this bill, but also to demonstrate that liberals/progressives are a significant bloc and can exert influence. Liberals/progressives and the liberal/progressive members of Congress should stand firmly against any bill which does not at least include a public option available to anyone who wants to buy it. And let the chips fall where they may. There's nothing irrational about it. To simply "go with the flow" and be afraid to be the one to cast the deciding vote against it is cowardly. Liberals/progressives should be, and have every right to be, obstructionists if the legislation goes against their principles.

[BzaDem]

16. "liberals/progressives are a significant bloc and can exert influence"

Do you have any evidence that they are at all a significant bloc that can exert influence?

Last time I checked, they are a minority (a small minority) in both houses of Congress. The non-progressive block is much, much bigger than the progressive block.

The reason progressives are not significant is because they don't have a majority. That is a problem that I wish to be corrected. But until progressives actually get a majority, they won't be able to enact progressive legislation. Pretending they are a majority is not going to solve the problem.

[begin_within]

22. They become significant when their votes are necessary for something to pass

[BzaDem]

26. You are assuming that they gain anything by letting this bill fail.

In order for one party to have any leverage, there threat to back out has to be credible. In other words, the idea of backing away from the table has to be more appealing to them then passing a bill.

Some people think that if progressives kill the bill, they will prove that they are a force that has to be reckoned with for future bills.

In reality, if they kill the bill, a new bill won't even be ATTEMPTED in the future. Nothing that the progressive block would kill (or anything further to the left) would even be proposed or brought to the floor of either house.

Obama would just start working with Republicans. Progressives would watch all of their influence wither away and die, while Obama enacts more welfare reform, just as in 1994. Obama will get re-elected easily (just as Clinton did in 1996). But the policies enacted will be MUCH further right than if progressives cooperated.

Progressives know this, and moderates know progressives know this. This is why the progressive threat isn't credible.

[timeforpeace]

9. One person's opinion, nothing more.

[T Wolf]

12. IF this disaster does pass, let's see where things are a year from now. The fact that many

so-called liberals may vote for the bill does nothing to support your hopey-changey prediction that the wonderful new health insurance system will be "very popular."

That argument is akin to Beck saying that the 3/5 voting worth of slaves was a good thing because it lessened the influence of the slave states.

The bill still sucks and will do more harm than good by setting in concrete the ownership of your health by the insurance corps.

[FBaggins]

13. Seems your healthcare plan covers some "nontraditional" medications

'cause you've been smoking something.

There is little reason to believe that anything will end up on the president's desk to sign.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. Rah, rah.

Good idea. Pass a lousy bill that doesn't help anyone so the Democrats can be blamed for it for years to come. Great plan.

[readmoreoften]

18. So, all you've got is ad hominem and circular arguments.

ad hominem: anyone who disagrees with the right is irrational
circular: only people who are rational make good decisions.

[PassingFair]

25. If it comes to pass, it will kill Democrats for decades to come.

I hope you are wrong, because this is simple appeasement,
and it didn't have to be.

[debbierlus]

28. YAY! The democrats can govern without being accountable to the people and ignore their wishes

....while accepting millions to be bought by the health care lobby....

Oh, goodie.

You are RIGHT. Thank god we have a system where the democrats can completely ignore the people and vote for legislation forcing people to buy a grossly overpriced and defective product. Then, they claim they expand coverage.

I have seen the light. Thank you!

:sarcasm:

[BzaDem]

33. You are confusing the "people" with you and a few other DU posters.

Democrats absolutely can govern without being accountable to YOU in particular (and even DU in general). Obama has a 93% approval rating among Democrats. You are confusing "the people" with the other 7%.

Nice try though.

[debbierlus]

34. Utter and pure b.s. -

The majority of population wanted a public option.

The VAST majority.