If the HCR deal loses vote-60 I want something passed by any means possible

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I think the HCR bill is crap.

And I think it isn't popular (even 53-47 isn't what you'd call popular) and probably isn't going to become popular.

It is probably even a political loser.

But at this point it isn't nearly as much a political loser as no bill would be.

(IMO)

This shit is getting serious.

I don't want pugs to take congress. (It would probably be the best thing for president Obama's prospects in 2012 but losing congress has real ramifications.)

So if Coakley loses I will not complain if the House has to just pass the senate bill as written (which would escape the need for 60 votes in the senate) if that's what it takes.

Not pretty, but that's my feeling.

ON EDIT: Something I just thought of... even if the Senate was slow to seat Br*wn we still wouldn't have 60 votes. With 99 in the Senate you still need 60.

ON FURTHER EDIT: DCS informs us that Kirk will serve until a new senator is seated, so that's all good.

[Pirate Smile]

1. We need to keep 60 votes in the Senate to be able to move the bill toward the left.

Essentially, any changes to the Bill will be moving the Senate Bill toward the House Bill.

Why any Progressive or liberal would think that ending our 60th vote in the Senate would in any way be beneficial to enacting a more progressive Bill is beyond me. The other option is it kills the bill completely and kills any chance of reform for decades.

I just don't see how any rational Dem or Progressive views Coakley losing as a positive in any way.

[dsc]

2. actually Kirk can keep serving

he is an interim until the new Senator is seated. This isn't like the Coleman situtation.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. how long will that be,. a week or two?

[dsc]

17. I read somewhere that it would take about 10 days (working)

before it had to be certified.

[Political Heretic]

4. I don't care about the politics as much as I care about what's good for working class families.

Passing "anything by any means" isn't.

[OrwellwasRight]

5. Ahhh, the old "a crappy bill is better than no bill" argument

Better for who??

Better for the working any middle class families now under a legal mandate to buy private health insurance without sufficient affordability subsidies?

Better for those with expensive, but not necessarily "luxurious" employer-provided health plans who will now have to pay taxes on those health plans even though they were promised they would not have to?

Better for the full time workers who will be reduced to part time to avoid the employer having to provide health insurance because the Senate's version of "employer responsibility" leaves this loophole wide open?

Better for the full time workers converted to independent contractors because both versions of the bill leave that loophole wide open?

Wait, wait, I know, better for the Democrats in competitive districts in the House who will lose in November because the union members won't come out to donate, volunteer, and vote because they are pissed off that Obama is taxing their health plans.

Look, the White House says that any bill is better than no bill, but folks who have to run in 2010 know that is a bunch of crap. If the lesson Rahm learned from "Hillary Care" is to get a bill, any bill, at any cost, I think he learned the wrong lesson.

The proof will be in the 2010 elections. And let's hope I am wrong about them.

[HughMoran]

8. Better for me?

My coverage for a family in my tiny business is $36k/yr. It will be closer to $15k/yr with exchanges. Oh, and my company President can't change insurance due to a pre-existing condition - so we're all stuck with the plan we have (which is just average BTW) because she can't switch plans. This bill will be a HUGE benefit to my company and thousands like it. You are just wrong to look at only the negative in this bill.

[OrwellwasRight]

10. Nope, not wrong. Looking at the big picture.

If we don't eliminate the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies or regulate their prices, how confident are you that there will be savings? When all Americans are required to buy, but the government isn't doing anything to hold prices down (e.g., a public plan for competition), the prices will skyrocket. That's just old fashioned supply and demand.

And again, if we lose the House and Senate because mainstream voters are turned off and don't come out to vote for the Dems, the bill will be repealed before it ever goes into effect.

Look at what happened to the attempt to add "Catastrophic Health Insurance" to Medicare when Dan Rostenkowski Chaired Ways and Means. Seniors came out and attacked him, literally chasing him down the street and surrounding him in his car. And the bill was repealed.

[HughMoran]

13. Not true - I'll go from a pool of 10 to a pool of thousands in an exchange - supply/demand

You're missing a big part of the picture here I think. Do you think passing Single Payer would change the tide for the Democrats? I hardly think so - I think that's an assumption without any facts to back it up and I'm really getting tired of people assuming it as fact.

[OrwellwasRight]

14. Thanks for name calling.

As if hiding calling me an "ASS" in the word ASSuming is acceptable? Cute. Not very bold, but cute.

As for facts, try these on for size:

One of many polls showing that Americans do favor single payer:

vhttp://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/

Now, as to putting words in someone's mouth, let's discuss that for a minute. I never advocated for single payer in any of my posts. Why do you assume that single payer is onthe only alternative to the Senate's spectacularly bad bill?

My point and my words stated that this particular bill sucks. Which is does. It has no public option -- clearly favored by 70% of Americans -- while it has craptastic pay-fors that will turn off rank-and-file democratic voters (especially union voters), ill-thought out employer responsibility provisions, and non-existent price or anti-trust regulation fixes.

Not to mention that you may or may not get the benefit of a larger purchasing pool. Read the Senate bill carefully. First, it sets up 50 different state exchanges, and there is no guarantee that each state will pass the enabling legislation. Second, the Senate version does not put all purchasers in the same pool. After dividing them by state, it then further allows the insurance companies to keep separate pools for individual buyers and small group buyers, one of the key causes of the problems of today.

Plus, just so we are clear, a larger pool in a health insurance exchange doesn't address the supply/demand problem, it addresses the risk-pool problem. More people = the risk of the very sick is diffused by the large number of healthy people.

The supply and demand problem actually gets worse with an individual mandate because you have much greater demand, (because it is mandated by law), but the same supply (only a few key insurance companies controlling each market). By not addressing the supply side (either by adding a public option, subjecting the insurance companies to strict price regulation (as they do in Switzerland), or some other mechanism, the upward pressures of high demand/low supply are likely to offset the downward pressure of a slightly larger risk pool.

Feel free to disagree. But to call me names or question my knowledge of this bill is not productive and won't score you any points.

[HughMoran]

15. I need this bill to save $21,000/year. My company owner is praying the bill will pass

Idealism of SP aside - which I support - does not get me or millions of others like me in similar situations out from under the control of the insurance rapists.

[Knockout]

6. +1

Stop the Repugs by any means necessary

[HughMoran]

7. Pragmatic thinking. I agree - good post. Kirk can stay I think

So, we still have 60 until the new Senator is sworn-in. And the Governor will delay as long as it takes if Brown was to win.

[sharesunited]

9. How about lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to zero?

[OrwellwasRight]

12. Exactly. Over even Medicare for children, say 0-21.

Then we'd have it at the beginning and end of life, and we'd just move the eligibility ages up and down until it wouldn't make any sense to leave out just 30-40 year-olds, and we'd have it solved without this corporate handout bullshit.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. You've got to take the long view.....

When the present effort fails -- and it must fail -- we'll just come back stronger, this time with single-payer.

Of course, that will be defeated, too, but it will be a much more righteous, nay, glorious, defeat.

And is there anything more satisfying that that?

I don't think so,

I figure that in thirty years after two more defeats, the bill that gets defeated that time will actually create -- well, actually only call for the creation of, because that bill just got defeated, but you catch my drift -- an American National Health Service, staffed by civil servants, with bricks and mortar belonging to the state.

Now losing a vote on health care reform that sweeping -- I can't imagine how any defeat could be more righteous or more glorious than that one.

But losing that vote lies far in the future. We have to start small, by losing votes on less comprehensive plans now, and gradually increase the scale of the plans that we can't get passed.

Now people will carp, and say "What about the unensured and uninsurable today?" That's just a lack of vision. My plan, in addition to being perfect, would of course also provide for a National Day of Commemoration for all the un- and underinsured who died in the meantime, in recognition of their completely avoidable suffering.

I'm sure they realize the place their sacrifice plays in our inexorable march towards a truly optimal solution to the problem of health care, and won't be resentful.

Do you think they'd like to be on a stamp? Or is something tasteful and not too showy on the Mall in Washington more appropriate?

[ddeclue]

16. A crappy bill is worse than no bill. I'd rather it dies.

another benefit is that Joe Lieberman will no longer be able to hold us hostage and we can move his office to the sub-basement janitor's closet and his parking place to Maryland.