I predict that, with Obama's leadership, we WILL have HCR signed into law before his SOTU.

[jenmito]

The media keeps saying it's VERY doubtful that Obama will have signed the final HCR bill into law before his SOTU address. I disagree. Since the reports are that it will be extremely difficult to reconcile the language in the Stupak Amendment and that in the Nelson Amendment, all Obama has to do is remind the House and Senate that, "This is not an abortion bill," and tell them to use the language of the Hyde Amendment. That should do it since both sides claim they support the Hyde Amendment or the "status quo" as they call it.

Obama said he will be deeply involved in this final step and I bet he will get it done.

[wryter2000]

1. I hope his deep involvement means kicking some blue dog butts

I hope he's not going to be telling Barbara Lee to sit down and shut up because we need blue dog votes. That Stupak thing cannot stand.

[jenmito]

4. The Stupak Amendment will never make it into the final bill.

And I'm hoping he will help make the final bill a little bit closer to the House bill by telling Nelson that he should be happy with the great deal he got for Nebraska and telling Lieberman that he needs to give a little.

[Phx_Dem]

2. I agree. He's definitely going to want to include final HCR in his SOTU.

[Oregone]

3. Maybe some of that magic leadership could of delivered real reform if exercised earlier

[jenmito]

5. I know you don't want to hear this, but

he's playing chess. ;) He will get a good bill to sign into law. It'll be better than the Senate bill.

[Oregone]

6. Yeah, so is God. How about them mysterious ways

Im just an ignorant mortal that feels sorry for the starving and suffering. But yes, they all serve some grander cause that hasn't come about in thousands of years.

[jenmito]

10. I don't believe in god. I DO believe that Obama will get this done and we'll

have a healthcare bill that will greatly improve many people's lives.

[Oregone]

12. Well, believe in one hand and shit in the other

Lemme know which one fills up quicker.

[jenmito]

13. Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything.

[Oregone]

14. Its as meaningful as believing Obama will solve the health care crisis

Believe what you want, but there is also reality to contend with

[jenmito]

16. He's 99% there already. n/t

[Oregone]

18. I said "solve the health care crisis", not "sign a piece of shit bill".

[jenmito]

22. He IS solving the health care crisis with this bill. It can and will be improved upon as

time goes by.

[Oregone]

24. LOL. Carry on good soldier

I can't wait until he solves global warming by signing some symbolic piece of crap

[jenmito]

26. LOL. Carry on hater.

He's doing a lot more to solve global warming than past presidents.

[Oregone]

28. Realizing he isn't solving the problem isn't being a "hater"

Marginalizing dissenters will not magically solve problems either

[jenmito]

30. And saying what he's accomplished isn't being a "good soldier." n/t

[timeforpeace]

60. Oops, you lose. Breaking out the "hater" epithet is the debate equivalent of "no mas!".

[jenmito]

62. So you just ignore the "good soldier" comment that prompted my comment? Or is THAT Ok

since you agree with it? :eyes:

[Skittles]

92. what the FUCK are you smoking

[jgraz]

93. And is it covered under HCR?

If so, I want some.

[Skittles]

94. this kind of worship sickens me in freeperland

and I gotta say, it is even more disgusting here :puke:

[jenmito]

98. This kind of hatred sickens me in freeperland

and I gotta say, it is even more disgusting here. :puke:

[Skittles]

114. it's not hatred, it is REALITY

WE DO NOT GOOSE-STEP - it's what sets us APART from freeperland - we actually call out SHIT when we see it

[KrR]

107. Supporting HCR is not 'worship'

maybe you belong in freeperland yourself.

[Skittles]

115. supporting reform is one thing

supporting a fucking scam is another

[jenmito]

97. Nothing-unlike you.

[Skittles]

116. I live in REALITY

not fucking WONDERLAND

[Garam_Masala]

88. You call this sh*t 99%? Boy, you are easy to please!

No Single Payer in both bills.
SP system is true HCR. Everything else is hodge podge.
With SP, every living person is in the same pool, and paying
on their ability to pay based on income. So simple yet so elegant.

P.O missing in senate bill.
Not as good as SP, but the ONLY way to make sure there is competition
to the for profit private health insurance industry.

No re-import of Drugs.
This is missing from both bills. Are you aware Big Pharma
passed on to us 11% increase this year? If this bill is not a bonanza for
Big Pharma with mandates and subsidized additional customers then I have
a slightly damaged bridge in Minnesota I can sell you.

No limits on insurance premiums.
Sure they can't cancel you or refuse you. But they can jack up premiums
for all their customers until there is enough profit to pay big bonuses
to the big corporate honcho's. Why there are no limits on pay when the
TARP recipients and Bailout recipients are subject to pay restrictions?

Big Pharma and Big Insurance are the Big winners. If you don't believe me,
please check their stock performance on Wall Street.

May be you own lots of stock in those outfits and that gets you to 99%?

[Milo_Bloom]

9. Everytime I hear this, i think of the "banking reforms"

and his chess match there.

Unfortunately, we lost that one as well.

When is everyone going to learn he is only playing one game right now.

It's called the spin game. No matter how crappy the legislation is, declare it a victory so you have a chance to get re-elected.

[kestrel91316]

17. An improvement over the Senate bill will NOT pass final muster with the Senate.

[jenmito]

23. We'll see.

[Donnachaidh]

33. that's lowering the bar to the point of ridiculousness

They could toss in coupons for Big Macs and make the Senate bill *better* by a mile.

[snake in the grass]

68. Meanwhile...

...back at the Oval Office, the strategy continues.

[MadMaddie]

7. I think he did the right thing!

He stayed at arms length to make the House and the Senate work through their processes.

Valuable lessons have been learned by letting the House and Senate go through the painful process.

We now have rid ourselves of a Conservadem from down south because he is claiming to be a repug now.
Lieberwhore cannot be trusted
The Repugs played all of their hands this round, they threw everything at the bills and showed us everything they had, which is nothing. They whined the whole time about this and that, not enough time, blah..blah..blah...we have higher expectations from our children then what these Repugs delivered.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to pay attention and continue to be aggressive and get this bill passed so we can move on to creating jobs. This will be an interesting battle, I am curious at how the Repugs will justify not supporting a job recovery bill.

[Oregone]

11. Well, he is infallible after all.

[MadMaddie]

52. No one said anything about infallible

It seems that forgetting history or selectively choosing history is the meme of the day. Do you remember what Clinton's mistake was when they tried to pass the bill back in the day? That's right President Clinton was so involved in it that they couldn't get past that sticking point, the effort was crushed before it even had a chance.

I have said before I don't agree with the way that President Obama has handled some things and he does not walk on water with me. I think the health care industry walked away with too much, Lieberman should have been neutered along time ago.

If you are okay with 45,000 people dieing a year for lack of any type of care than pat yourself on the back you should be proud.

The bottom line is NO bill would be on the table if Repugs were in charge they had 8 years to do it and they did nothing.

And again this is NOT the final bill that will go to the President. The House bill is much better than the Senate bill and whoever is in the negotiations better understand that we are watching.

[Oregone]

65. Everything he does is a triumphant stroke in an incomprehensible chessmatch, and perfectly justified

He is therefore infallible, or at least, perceived to be so by some

[MadMaddie]

67. Again you are responding to my comment and I never

mentioned infallible.

I think we are going to have agree to disagree on this point.

[Oregone]

70. You never did, but should have

I mean really...do you percieve him as capable of failing? What were his failings in the health reform? What were his failings in the Afghan escalation? What were his failings in the economic stimulus?

Are you sure he failed? Maybe they are incomprehensible chess moves you aren't smart enough to understand.

If you don't think he is failed, you have no evidence that he can fail. So he is, in every sense, infallible.

[jgraz]

8. My prediction is that, with Obama's "leadership", the Joementum Senate bill will win

And every progressive House provision will lose.

If they come out of conference with even a marginally acceptable Public Option, I will happily eat my words.

[jenmito]

20. Do you think it will include the Stupak language? n/t

[jgraz]

32. If they need the Stupak to pass the bill, it will.

However, I think that this is one bone that Obama is going to throw to the progressives. For all we know, it may have been put there specifically to give Obama something to fight against, distracting from the rest of the horrible shit in the Senate version that he's perfectly happy with.

Again, the question is not whether Obama's playing chess. The question is who he's playing against.

[jenmito]

34. Wow-so putting the Stupak amendment in there was a conspiracy?

That's a shame that you can't even give Obama credit if he gets the Stupak language taken out of the bill.

[jgraz]

37. If Obama gets credit for removing Stupak, he gets the blame for allowing it in the first place

You can't have it both ways. If he has the power now to influence Congress, he had the power then to keep it out of the original bill.

So you have to ask yourself: why did he allow it in the original bill?

[jenmito]

39. I don't have to ask myself that. I KNOW why he "allowed" it-

so it could pass the House. And now that it has passed the House and the Senate has passed their version, it can be taken out.

[jgraz]

40. But it *still* has to pass the House

Why can Obama get it through the House now and he couldn't then? What would have been wrong with him using the same "leadership" he's using now to prevent a nasty and distracting fight on abortion that stalled the bill in both houses?

[jenmito]

41. Because he wanted it to get done so that it could move to this final stage.

It can't be changed any more after this. He can "rally the troops" to get this finished.

[jgraz]

45. I find that whole "strategy" tale incredibly thin

And not any more believable than my so-called "conspiracy".

Obama said it himself: this bill is 95% of what he wanted. That means that all the lofty talk about holding the insurance companies accountable was just that: talk. He was pretending to care while using his feigned powerlessness as an excuse for losing every progressive provision in the bill. Now that the sellout is almost complete, he's going to breeze in, alter some nasty abortion language (maybe) and declare victory.

You'll pardon me if I don't jump for joy.

[jenmito]

49. I don't.

This bill DOES hold insurance companies accountable. Barbara Boxer explained how on Morning Joe yesterday. Funny how you believe the Stupak amendment was a conspiracy. Do you really doubt Obama THAT MUCh??

[jgraz]

53. In what way does it hold them accountable? Be specific.

It's not really that far-fetched to see Stupak as a conspiracy. After all, Obama's already ON RECORD as forming a conspiracy with Billy Tauzin and the rest of Big Pharma to keep drug reimportation out of the bill.

I view Stupak as more of a LIHOP than a MIHOP. They needed something to remove in conference and Stupak was a useful idiot for them. If they had wanted to, they could have killed the Stupak amendment before it ever hit the floor, just as they did with the Dorgan drug reimportation amendment.

[jenmito]

55. Here ya go:

* Among the many provisions to end insurer abuses, lower premiums, and hold insurance companies accountable:
* Insurance market reforms will prohibit abuses such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, charging exorbitant premiums based on gender, age, or health status, dropping coverage when people are sick, and imposing lifetime limits on benefits.
* Consumer rights will be enhanced by requiring all insurers to provide effective appeals procedures including outside, independent review of appeals
* New insurance exchanges will reduce premium increases by lowering administrative costs and increasing the leverage of individuals and small businesses in this insurance market.
* Competition will also be enhanced by providing consumers comparative information on available insurance options giving them the tools to make more informed decisions and drive competition based on value and service.
* Insurers will be held accountable for excessive overhead costs fueled by unreasonable executive compensation and profits.
* Insurers will also be required to compete against cost-effective national plans selected by the federal Office of Personnel Management.
* Wasteful taxpayer overpayments to insurance companies through private Medicare Advantage plans will be eliminated.
* A new $6.7 billion annual fee will be levied on insurance companies to ensure that they pay their fair share of coverage costs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/16/a-dream-insurance-companies-must-be-news-them

[jgraz]

63. So it holds them accountable the way a sieve holds water

I need to head out for some last-minute shopping, so I'll just take your first item.

Insurance market reforms will prohibit abuses such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions,

Kicking in at 2014 for adults, with no limit on the discriminatory premiums you can be charged for the crime of being sick.


charging exorbitant premiums based on gender, age, or health status

They allow them to charge more based on any of these criteria - up to three times "normal" premiums if you're careless enough to grow old. I wonder what the White House considers "exhorbitant"... :shrug:


dropping coverage when people are sick,

Unless the can show "fraud", which is exactly how they drop people now.


and imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

As opposed to the yearly caps currently in the Senate bill.



At the very least, can't you see that this bill is being spun like a top? Is THIS the kind of transparency and honesty you expected from the HOPEANDCHANGEANDYESWECAN President?

[jenmito]

69. My response:

Insurance market reforms will prohibit abuses such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions,

<Kicking in at 2014 for adults, with no limit on the discriminatory premiums you can be charged for the crime of being sick.>

AIt kicks in in '10 for children. Adults can sign up to a high-risk pool until it kicks in.


charging exorbitant premiums based on gender, age, or health status

<They allow them to charge more based on any of these criteria - up to three times "normal" premiums if you're careless enough to grow old. I wonder what the White House considers "exhorbitant"...> :shrug:

Someone on MSNBC said that NOW they charge at least five times "normal" premiums.


dropping coverage when people are sick,

<Unless the can show "fraud", which is exactly how they drop people now.>

No-they don't have to prove "fraud" to drop people now. They simply don't have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. No excuse needed.


and imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

<As opposed to the yearly caps currently in the Senate bill.>

That is FALSE. The bill REMOVES yearly and lifetime caps.

[jgraz]

74. My response to your response

Insurance market reforms will prohibit abuses such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions,

<Kicking in at 2014 for adults, with no limit on the discriminatory premiums you can be charged for the crime of being sick.>

AIt kicks in in '10 for children. Adults can sign up to a high-risk pool until it kicks in.

Doesn't address my main objection: we still wait four years for adult pre-existing conditions to be covered and there is no limit on what discriminatory rates they can be charged.

charging exorbitant premiums based on gender, age, or health status

<They allow them to charge more based on any of these criteria - up to three times "normal" premiums if you're careless enough to grow old. I wonder what the White House considers "exhorbitant"...>

Someone on MSNBC said that NOW they charge at least five times "normal" premiums.

Oh wow -- from five times unaffordable to three times unaffordable. Pardon me while I swoon with HOPE and CHANGE.

dropping coverage when people are sick,

<Unless the can show "fraud", which is exactly how they drop people now.>

No-they don't have to prove "fraud" to drop people now. They simply don't have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. No excuse needed.

You're confusing pre-existing conditions with recision of people already holding policies. Right now, if someone gets cancer, their insurance provider can pore over every form they've ever submitted, looking for errors. If they find one, they shout "FRAUD" and drop the policy. The current bill leaves this procedure in place while pretending to end it.

As long as insurance companies are allowed to drop patients for so-called fraud, they can still drop anyone they feel like and dare the dying patient to sue.

and imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

<As opposed to the yearly caps currently in the Senate bill.>

That is FALSE. The bill REMOVES yearly and lifetime caps.

Hmm... every article I've read says the bill contains annual caps. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iY4N1OnmEl-p6kEdB_ROs6toazbQD9CH3T100

Was there a recent amendment that I missed? :shrug:

[jenmito]

81. My response to your response to my response:

"Doesn't address my main objection: we still wait four years for adult pre-existing conditions to be covered and there is no limit on what discriminatory rates they can be charged."

You can appeal any decision to an impartial board the govt. will have set up.



"Oh wow -- from five times unaffordable to three times unaffordable. Pardon me while I swoon with HOPE and CHANGE."

I heard Howard Dean say yesterday that that was changed IIRC.



"You're confusing pre-existing conditions with recision of people already holding policies. Right now, if someone gets cancer, their insurance provider can pore over every form they've ever submitted, looking for errors. If they find one, they shout "FRAUD" and drop the policy. The current bill leaves this procedure in place while pretending to end it.

As long as insurance companies are allowed to drop patients for so-called fraud, they can still drop anyone they feel like and dare the dying patient to sue."

You claim this bill "pretends to end it." They have safeguards in place so insurance companies can't get away with that anymore.



"Hmm... every article I've read says the bill contains annual caps. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iY4N1...

Was there a recent amendment that I missed? :shrug:"

‘‘Subpart II—Improving Coverage
2 ‘‘SEC. 2711.NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health
4 insurance issuer offering group or individual health insur5
ance coverage may not establish—
6 ‘‘(1) lifetime limits on the dollar value of bene7
fits for any participant or beneficiary; or
8 ‘‘(2) unreasonable annual limits (within the
9 meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue
10 Code of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any
11 participant or beneficiary.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

You focus on "unreasonable annual limits" while I focus on "no lifetime or annual limits." The rule is now no annual limits which it wasn't before. And if you consider that a loophole that will negate the "no annual limits," you also have to say there is no mandate since there's a "loophole" saying there is no penalty if you don't comply.

[jgraz]

86. My response to your response to my... oh whatever

It sounds like many of these things are unclear or open to interpretation. At any rate, everything is in flux until the final bill comes out of conference. My prediction, however, is that if any part of this bill contains even the tiniest of loopholes, insurance companies will find a way around the law.

And, if any loophole is left in this bill, it was left there intentionally as a sop to corporate money.

[jenmito]

90. My response to whatever...

So, in other words, you're complaining about a bill that isn't even final yet. Are you a "KillTheBilller"?

OK, if the loopholes we discussed are in the bill, it's still better than it was with stronger language than before re: caps on annual benefits, and there is no mandate. So how is that a "sop to corporate money"?

[jgraz]

91. Oh come on.

So, in other words, you're complaining about a bill that isn't even final yet. Are you a "KillTheBilller"?

So, in other words, you're defending a bill that isn't even final yet. Are you a "mindless cheerleader"? (see what I did there?)

OK, if the loopholes we discussed are in the bill, it's still better than it was with stronger language than before re: caps on annual benefits, and there is no mandate. So how is that a "sop to corporate money"?

No. If the loopholes are there and it still includes a mandate (even a weirdly unenforced mandate) it's an overall lose for the public. In fact, if the mandates are there and there's no public option, it's an overall lose. Nothing contained in the bill will prevent companies from jacking up rates, deductibles and copays every year while reducing coverage. In other words, it forces us to by junk and provides no alternative.

[jenmito]

96. Yes, I see what you did there...

but my OP was about Obama getting a final bill to sign into law before his SOTU. I didn't start talking about the bill that isn't done yet. I defended certain parts from attacks of others.

If the "no annual caps loophole" provision is a "sop to corporate money," the "no penalty for not paying the mandate loophole" is just the opposite, negating everything you said in your last sentences. :shrug:

[jgraz]

106. So your defense is...

a poorly-written clause in one part of the bill offsets a corporate giveaway in another? What it sounds like is that this bill changes NOTHING. You still have annual caps, you still have recision, you still have discrimination for pre-existing conditions and you have no universal coverage (which is what enforced mandates were all about).

So, the only real changes are huge giveaways to big pharma and a legislative blowjob for the insurance companies. Nicely done.

[jenmito]

109. No...

you can't call ONE clause "poorly written" and the other clause a "corporate giveaway." You do NOT have annual caps. It was just poorly written-just like there really ARE mandates-it was just poorly written. :shrug:

[ima_sinnic]

73. another sieve: what are "unreasonable" exec compensation & profits?

what a bunch of bullshit.

how much of my anticipated $400/mo "insurance policy" (that's just for the policy--never mind the mysterious undefined and apparently unregulated co-pays and deductibles) will be earmarked for the CEO bonus fund? I want to be able to withhold that amount. I'll pay for "insurance," but I don't think CEOs need taxpayer money for their yachts, mcmansions, bentleys, jewelry, and fine art collections. Especially since they are the scum of the earth and don't deserve SHIT. sheesh. I can see this is not going to work very well for me.

[jgraz]

76. Even worse: guess who gets to decide what's "unreasonable".

[ima_sinnic]

79. yeah--gee, who picked him? another big reason I WILL be voting elsewhere in 2012

[jenmito]

82. Wow-so if he has no primary opponent, you'll be voting for the Repub.?

[jgraz]

84. There are more parties than Democratic and Republican

For example, I usually vote Socialist but I made an exception in 2008.

[ima_sinnic]

87. did I say that? I said I would NOT be voting for the person who opened my wallet so freely

to useless waste-of-oxygen greedy scumbag gazillionaires who do absolutely NOTHING of use to society, i.e., Obama. Since the republicans are of the same Party of Wealth and Corruption, I wouldn't vote for one of them either. If Obama is the candidate in 2012, I'll vote 3rd party, write in Dean, or simply not vote.

[jenmito]

89. WOW-Obama "opened your wallet so freely" to the scum of the earth?

Really? That's terrible!!! Good luck living under a Repub. president who will be 100 times worse than Obama who did his best to stop the economy from falling off the cliff!

[jgraz]

95. If we do end up with Repukes in charge, it will be the fault of Obama and the other Corporocrats

But one thing will be different: you won't be making excuses for them.

[jenmito]

99. No-it'll be YOUR fault and other purists.

And we'll all be living in a country much worse off than under Obama.

[ima_sinnic]

101. "purists"--whatever. pure bullshit is all I see.

and I don't think there could be anything much worse than subsidizing billionaire's welfare funds. You seem so happy about giving your money to rich insurance co. CEOs. What EXACTLY are you getting in return for funding their yachts and gated mansions?

[jenmito]

103. You see wrong.

I'm not subsidizing billionaires' welfare funds. Obama brought our economy back from the brink of disaster. I'm happy that he did that. You're not. :shrug:

[ima_sinnic]

117. I'm talking about your mandatory subsidy--that part of your new forced "insurance policy"

and it's too soon to know for sure whether the predatory capitalists have been "brought back from the brink of disaster," but their new unlimited profits from these mandatory insurance policies will help their poor widdle "bottom line," won't it? not that that helps you or me in any way--but the pigs are saved!

[jgraz]

110. You mean the 40% "purist" Dems who won't be voting in 2010?

Good luck convincing them all to change their minds.

[ima_sinnic]

100. I guess the "democrats" better at least get some regulations going then, eh?

"republican," "democrat"--what's the difference? do you like to be screwed by a D or an R?
and, yes, it was Obama who made sure the bankers and Wall St. and the insurance co. parasites would not have to sell their yachts, take a reduction in "pay," or even pay taxes. All these giveaways to billionaires with no strings attached are just unacceptable, and they're happening under Obama.

"did his best"? that's YOUR opinion and not everybody's. I'm reserving judgment about the economy--I notice that jobs aren't really picking up--yet now we'll have shiny new insurance policies to pay for.
This administration is just too damned conservative and tilted toward big money interests. I don't like "conservatives." They're cowardly status quo lovers afraid of real change (ironically). Obama pretended to be "one of the people" or to be one of "us." He didn't mention that Yes We Can meant Yes We Can screw you with impunity because "we" have all the money. He wanted vague undefined "reform," with no guiding principles, so now he's free to say it wasn't his fault how it turned out. His first allegiance was to the insurance co's. Conveniently, he could have Baucus work that angle and make himself come out smelling like a rose (after lying about this "big table" "we" we "all" going to be around). The bill is what they wanted, and he got it for them. He delivered We The People to them--and judging from the number of people who think that's a good thing, it wasn't really that hard, was it? some million-dollar words, some catchy slogans, some false promises of "change"--it's working very well for them.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm working on my taxes. You know, STILL something only the little people do. If he can get the rich to pay taxes, I'll vote for him again. But that's not in his plans.

[NJmaverick]

15. The media is clueless, the ones to listen to are Reid and Pelosi

they will have the best handle on things.

[jenmito]

27. I agree. And I think they're underestimating Obama, too.

They bought into the meme that's he's "weak" and "ineffectual."

[bigwillq]

19. I hope he signs it

when the bill is good and ready. No need to reach a certain deadline. When it's finished, it's finished.

[jenmito]

29. "What's the rush," right?

:eyes:

[bigwillq]

31. You're right.

No need to rush it. When the bill is ready, it'll be ready. I would rather have a solid bill than one that meets a certain deadline set by a DUer.

I will edit this.
I would rather have a solid bill than one that meets a predicted deadline.

[jenmito]

36. You think I set the deadline?

:rofl:

[bigwillq]

42. Didn't say that

You're predicting he will sign it by the SOTU. Fine. I don't think there's a need to set a deadline for the signing of the bill. When it's done, it's done. I will rather get it right then to meet some sort of deadline.

[jenmito]

44. I'm predicting that he will sign it by the SOTU which was HIS deadline

after the other deadlines passed.

[bigwillq]

47. Cool.

Still, I would rather have a good bill, even if it doesn't meet the deadline set by the president or anyone else in the prediction game.

[jenmito]

50. How's the bill going to get any better by putting it off? n/t

[HopeOverFear]

21. when is the SOTU?

[jenmito]

25. The date isn't set yet.

[HopeOverFear]

58. It's usually sometime in January, right?

[jenmito]

61. Yeah, but Gibbs said on Tuesday that

it could be the end of Jan. or the beginning of Feb.

[tekisui]

35. Passage by the SOTU has always been the real deadline.

[jenmito]

38. Well, you better tell that to bigwillq who thinks I set the deadline.

But the media is saying that deadline won't be met.

[bigwillq]

43. I never said you set the deadline.

See above.

[jenmito]

46. "I would rather have a solid bill than one that meets a certain deadline set by a DUer." n/t

[bigwillq]

48. I edited since

since you obviously didn't get the humor in my post. I left the orginal up. But edited below in that same post.

[jenmito]

51. I saw your edit...

but I didn't see any humor in your post. Can you point out what was supposed to be funny?

[Clear Blue Sky]

54. Then why is he saying it won't happen til February at the earliest?

[timeforpeace]

56. He hasn't seen the OP and his marching orders.

[jenmito]

59. I doubt you know what you're talking about.

[Cha]

64. Too bad you have to resort to stupidity bc you have nothing else.

[jenmito]

57. Do you have a quote of him saying that?

[Clear Blue Sky]

72. Yes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32718713/ns/politics-white_house/

[Clear Blue Sky]

75. Another

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html

[jenmito]

77. Where's a quote of him saying it won't happen til February at the earliest??

[Clear Blue Sky]

78. Ever heard of Google?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30925.html

[jenmito]

83. LOL-you gave me 3 links and not ONE has a quote of Obama saying what you said he said.

[Clear Blue Sky]

102. So Gibbs speaks for himself and not his boss?

[jenmito]

108. What did Gibbs say? Where's the quote?

[Clio the Leo]

66. One of the reporters I follow on Twitter said yesterday the WH's claim to the contrary....

.... might be a case of under-promising and over performing.

I thought the WH admitting that we wouldn't have a bill by then was very odd .... unlike anything they've done thus far on the matter.

[jenmito]

71. I heard on CNN that

the WH still IS trying to sign a final bill before his SOTU. I think he WILL.

[ibegurpard]

80. What is HCR?

Surely, you don't mean healthcare reform...because all I see is manated transfer of wealth from taxpayers to insurance companies.

[jenmito]

85. The mandate is not mandatory. There was a thread here yesterday showing that to be true. n/t

[DCBob]

104. I suspect the final bill will very much like the Senate version..

since there is very little wiggle room there. However in the House they only need a simple majority and should have no problem getting enough votes even though many wont be too happy with it.

[jenmito]

112. It probably will be closer to the Senate bill than the House bill...

a lot closer, but even that would be better than nothing. A LOT better.

[Politicub]

105. I believe so, too.

And it will be a remarkable day when President Obama signs the bill, and then, at last, a right to health care will be enshrined in law. This imperfect bill is a tremendous first step for the ongoing journey of reforming health care. The law can and will be improved.

[jenmito]

111. Exactly...

it's a shame that so many people here won't appreciate the historic moment about to happen.

[blue_onyx]

113. Correction

We will have health insurance reform signed into law

[Hekate]

118. Kick, Rec, and I applaud you for your ability to continue to argue with so many Ignoreds...

(I peeked, and sure enough it was alternately bilious and vile.)

I believe you are right. The process is perking along.

Hekate