I am not totally enamored of the Senate bill by any means

[dsc]

but we must pass something and the only realistic route to passage is the Senate bill plus some changes in reconciliation (those would be altering of the 'cadillac' plan tax and putting in a tax on millionaires). We have to understand this. Like it or not, the Democratic brand took the hit of passing this bill already. We got all the downside and none of the upside of having actually passed the bill. If we pass the bill we will get the upside of insuring kids until 25, ending pre existing conditions for children now, adults in 2014, and eliminating the donut hole. If we don't, we won't. We have 0% chance of getting even one single solitary GOP vote for anything unless it is to let insurance cross state lines, and tort reform with nothing else at all. I don't think we will avoid major losses no matter what we do, but if we want to still have the House, we must pass a bill. It is as simple as that.

[Schema Thing]

1. yes to that.

[timeforpeace]

47. Never seen a title that so obviously had a "but" attached to it.

[Oregone]

2. Yes, theyll fix it when they finish fixing NAFTA

[dsc]

3. dionne has a way that the fixes can come at the same time

basicly house passes reconciliation part and sends to Senate who changes one, agreed upon thing, House then passes Senate bill and the Senate version of the Reconciliation.

[karynnj]

10. Not this time, it sounds like the two will happen essentially at the same time

(I think the House needs that timing - for exactly that reason.) If I understand it, the Senate will vote on the fix which needs 50 and the House on both pieces.

[Pirate Smile]

28. or the House wanted at least 50 Senators to sign a letter (or something) saying they would pass the

agreed on changes through Reconcilliation if the House passed the Senate Bill first. Senate didn't want to sign it. Sign it, damn it, and give it to Nancy to show you wont screw them over.

Pass.The.Damn.Bill. - and do it soon.

[johan helge]

4. Yes, they should pass the bill

It will be a huge step forward. Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/plan-b/): "Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care."

[jillan]

5. They have to pass something or else it's going to look that the past year was wasted.

Yes they made improvements on the economy, but face it, HCR was the debate of the past year.

[Wardoc]

35. Trying to save face is not a good reason to push flawed law.

[GinaMaria]

40. +1 'look like' they wasted a year?

they did waste a year sucking up to the insurance lobby.

[DJ13]

6. We do they "have to pass something"?

Dont fall for the corporate party line.

A bad bill never needs to be passed.

[salguine]

9. Absolutely. And passing this shit bill will guarantee that it probably WON'T be improved upon. Where

is the incentive to fix it once it's passed? They said pass NAFTA and it'll be fixed later. We all saw how that turned out.

[Atticus]

13. "Corporate party line?" Is this type of hyperbole ever helpful?

People who over-generalize about those with whom they disagree in order to discredit them, are often avoiding engaging on the merits.

There are valid objections to the Senate Bill. I have voiced many of them on this board. But, there are also valid, and I now believe, persuasive arguments in favor of passing this bill, or substantially all of it, in order to support a President just one year into an administration which still holds promise.

And, "bad" as compared to---something real and possible---or some ideal which we likely could all agree upon, but which does not presently exist as a viable alternative?

[Skittles]

26. this HCR is indeed CORPORATE PARTY BULLSHIT

[Atticus]

52. I defer to your experience with bullshit. nt

[Skittles]

54. lately, on DU, LOTS OF IT

it is extremely disconcerting any Democrat would support this so-called "Healthcare Reform"

[Atticus]

55. I am not at all happy with the bill. Our real options at this point seem to be:

pass this "POS" with some good in it and hope to be able to make it better with a series of amendments and in reconciliation OR kill the bill (or let it die) and wear the failure around our neck like a rotting albatross in the 2010 elections, thereby losing many seats, weakening the President, emboldening our enemies and endangering all the good that COULD still be done.

We disagree, but we should not be enemies. We want the same things. (I favor single payer)

I'll let you stay in the Party if you'll let me stay. How about it?

[Skittles]

25. CORRECT

[GinaMaria]

41. We don't have to pass something. The dems owe the

insurance lobby. They need to pass it to avoid being swift boated. The dems will ram this through and we will all get less health care not better health care.

[dkf]

7. We haven't taken the hit yet.

That isn't coming until November. So far we've lost one senate seat in one of the bluest states in the nation.

We can still lose the house and the senate.

There is lots more downside potential for Democrats.

[eridani]

37. Wrong. We've lost TWO seats

Dorgan is being forced out of the Senate because of this bill.

[gkhouston]

8. If we've already taken the hit, then let's use sidecar reconciliation and get the public option,

remove the anti-trust exemption, allow drug re-importation, etc. If we "must" pass something, it should be something worthwhile. Passing the Senate bill as is is worse than nothing.

[WonderGrunion]

50. All three of those are regulatory functions, not budgetary

They will face a 60 vote hurdle in the Senate, something we barely had for the existing Senate bill.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

11. I totally agree with you .. and I REALLY wanted a PO, but if this doesn't pass....

then nothing will be done for 20 years. Also, it will look like the 1st year of Obama's Presidency (when he had the most political capital) was a WASTE.



If the Senate Bill is watered down in ANY way though, I probably won't support it. I'm hoping that we can start with this, and then improve it over the years.

[Tippy]

12. We must get this bill passed

We could have had something much better...but we need to quit kicking that dead horse and get this done...RIGHT NOW...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. yes it should pass but Senators are not off the hook!

I would like an ammendment to let states have the option of providing state healthcare with federal start up money.

[liberalpragmatist]

22. The Senate bill actually does have that provision

Inserted by Bernie Sanders. States would have a very wide latitude to opt-out of aspects of the federal plan or design their own plan, so long as their coverage standards don't fall below national ones. So, they could for example have a single-payer system if they want.

The only catch is they have to "opt-out" and they're only allowed to after the initial phase-in. I think it would be 2-3 years before they could opt to do something different. (The point is, they want to prevent Republican states, for example, from avoiding the program in the first place.)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. not a lot of people know that!

[niceypoo]

19. They haven't eviscerated it enough yet

There is still a couple things left in it, once they strip those out they will pass it.

[Clio the Leo]

14. While you and I dont always agree.....

.... I've always considered you to be one of the more intelligent, rational posts.

Good to see that we DO agree on this one.

[dsc]

18. thanks I appreciate that.

[Pirate Smile]

30. It is true. You are always fair and realistic even when the options sometimes

suck.

It gives you greater credibility. Cheers to you. :toast:

[ShortnFiery]

15. "Something" is a mandate with no cost control. The road to HELL is paved with good intentions.

Best to NOT pass this MANDATE bill that we will NOT be able to reverse when we figure out that our legislators don't have the courage to pass a Public Option.

[dsc]

17. I think the mandate will lead to somewhat lower premiums

though I can't prove that. I think if it doesn't then the issue will be revisited.

[GinaMaria]

42. Good one!

:rofl:

Oh, you're serious? Lower premiums with incredibly high out of pocket deductibles and copays. The insurance companies didn't give up anything in this bill. There are things in it that either enhance their bottom line or are bottom line neutral. They will not take a hit. They will proceed with their strategies with or with out a bill.

[Aramchek]

20. that's right

[KingFlorez]

21. There shouldn't be any mandates for buying insurance

I think this is a pointless measure, we need to get insurance to those who need. It's about affordability and forcing people to buy insurance that is still overpriced doesn't fix the system, it legitimizes it.

[dsc]

23. then it is impossible to get rid of pre existing conditions

no person would buy insurance if they knew they could later get it when they got sick.

[KingFlorez]

27. Without an affordable alternative, it's quite unfair for any mandates to be placed

That was my point. If a bill is going to be passed, I think it should be real reform on all counts, the issue of no competition and overpricing is still a problem with the current bill.

[JVS]

24. I think stage 2 is we pass it and then get beaten silly with it because it sucks.

I think it's time to bail. We should have never let it get this bad.

[boomerbust]

29. Just saw Feingold and Kohl

On the teevee. They both said it must be passed with Puke input.:smoke:

[dsc]

33. It is passed

you don't get do overs on your vote. If the House passes the Senate version, it is law, Feingold, Kohl, and the rest can just deal.

[Teaser]

31. pretty much the truth

.

[mzmolly]

32. There is much good in the current bill.

It will only improve in reconciliation.

[eridani]

38. The only good things are expansions and improvements in Medicare and Medicaid

Every other part of the bill should be tossed, pronto. Forcing people to pay off mass murderers who stand between them and their doctors, with no cost controls worth spit, is going to destroy our party.

[mzmolly]

46. Subsidizing health care premiums for those making less than 87K

and preventing denial based upon pre-existing conditions are good things as well. Not to mention the possibility of single payer plans on a state by state basis, as well as implementing so called public options, again on a state by state basis.

[Wardoc]

34. The Senate Bill is poison now, with a promise of food later. No deal. Kill the bill. (nt)

[eridani]

36. Passing this bill is going to kill oft the Dem majority, period

Unless maybe Obama gets really really populist on jobs and finance reform.

Shitcan this fucking bill NOW! It has already cost us Dorgan in ND--he was FORCED OUT due to being associated with it. No public option open to all--no fucking mandate either!

[GinaMaria]

44. It's the first step to killing off medicare

all those who are going along with this in the hopes of a PO later are in for a surprise. The little bit of PO we have now, Medicare, will be dismantled with this bill.

These bums need to be run out of office. They are doing what * could not accomplish.

[GinaMaria]

39. The only reason dems need to pass this quick is that

they've made promises to their financial masters and those masters have paid to get what they want. The bill matches the insurance companies' strategy. This bill is horrible. Mass. election presents an opportunity. This is an opportunity to get it right, not an excuse to ram through crap. The bill is an Insurance Company bailout not health care reform. The 'democratic brand' deserves the hit for this. The brand represents sellouts. The bottom line is that dems will pass this dog of a bill. They fear the insurance industry lobby a lot more than they fear the voter. They've made their choice. We the people were never really represented in this. Post like yours seem to want people to be okay with this and just get on board.

Fix it first, then pass it. As it stands, there's only one fix. The fix is in the bill for the insurance companies.

This is unacceptable performance by our employees. I intend to do some firing in DC.

[mkultra]

43. i would rather quibble until everyone has exactly what they want.

[TheKentuckian]

48. They should have thought about that when they were using the possibility of real reform

as a carrot to allow a bill that should have been killed in commitee to become the plan.

If they want to save their ass then they had best get with Byrd and figure out a creative and effective way to produce reform to our failed system rather than punitive corporate welfare and empowerment.

If they wanted their jobs they would not have cynically pushed this insurance profit and private wealth protection act.

[WonderGrunion]

49. Thank you DSC. We need the senate bill to get regulatory reform.

The financial aspects can be pushed through with reconciliation votes after the fact, but we can't change the core of the system without passing a HCR bill now and I don't believe it is possible to pass any bill other than the Senate one at this time and still avoid a 60 vote requirement.

[David Zephyr]

51. At this point, even the words "health care reform" are toxic.

Barack Obama shit the bed his entire first year.

His focus, as I began screaming here last Summer should have been jobs and ending the housing catastrophe. He screwed around instead with health care and in the end was simply rushing to have any bill at all that he could tout in his State of the Union address and he looked foolish, out of touch and no different than your average run-of-the-mill politician.

The health care bill is dead. It needs to stay dead because the House won't pass the Senate Bill and the Senate won't pass anything the House changes. It's dead.

Personally, I believe it is too late now to try to appear concerned about the employment situation and anything the White House does now will look only opportunistic to the American People. Still, the President and any Democrat in Congress would be wise not to even say the word health care anymore until the job situation is improving.

[JVS]

53. Obama did focus on jobs first with the stimulus package. Only then did he move to HCR

One can argue that the stimulus wasn't enough, but you can't say that the economy was completely ignored.

[David Zephyr]

57. Not "new" jobs.

Study the issue. The LA Times went through every dollar Obama spent with his stimulus package. Some retention of government and municipal jobs, zip for new private sector job creation, and saddest of all, zip for green jobs.

He did not do what was imperative his first year, stimulate job creation.

[Honeycombe8]

56. It would be harmful to us and the country to pass that bill. It entrenches an

out of control system where costs are skyrocketing. After all, it doesn't contain any cost restriction provisions.

That's one of the main purposes of health care reform. Without cost containment, it would be harmful to us and the country.