home

Better Luck Next Time On HCR? Sunset The Mandate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:41:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

[I wrote this one a few days ago. Think it bears revisiting.]

Well, health care reform failed yet again. It's not clear what will be in the final bill that President Obama signs before the State of the Union, but it surely will not be health care, or even health insurance, reform. The question becomes will there be another crack at it in the foreseeable future? One way to make sure there is another crack at it would be to sunset the individual mandate portion of the bill (killing the mandates would be preferable but that's not going to happen.)

Given the political power of the insurance industry, the only reason there has been a discussion about health care reform this year is because the carrot of mandates could be dangled. This bill delivers those mandates to the insurance industry. Without that carrot, I can not imagine a time in the near future where health care reform is again taken up. UNLESS, the individual mandates are sunsetted. More . . .

The rationale that could be provided for this would be that it would be unfair to mandate the purchase of insurance if reforms have failed. Accordingly, a mandate sunset could certainly be sold politically and it would insure (pun intended) a revisit of health care reform when the mandates sunset.

Call it a mandated trigger for reconsideration of health care reform. Realistically, this could be ten years after passage (2019). 10 years is a long time I know. But it is shorter than forever.

Then, perhaps, we will have a better Democratic Party. Probably not. But some chance is better than no chance.

Speaking for me only

< Mandates As Bargaining Chip | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Better Luck Next Time On HCR? Sunset The Mandate | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    kill it (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:43:22 AM EST
    mandates, fines, penalties and no P.O.

    as I have been saying since Big Pharma cut the original deal

    kill the bill

    the bill as proposed will kill the Democratic majorities for gens IMO

    I sure hope (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:05:37 AM EST
    there are some dems with enough spine to vote against this sorry bill.

    Parent
    I don't see (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    how they can pass a bill like this through the house.  The last one barely passed the house, and the house reps are a lot more beholden to their constituents - precisely because districts are smaller than states and those populations can be much more liberal.

    Parent
    hope you're right (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:21:34 AM EST


    Parent
    me too.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:29:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:44:52 AM EST
    But that is not going to happen.

    My suggestion is related to what might happen.

    Parent

    But your suggestion assumes (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Andy08 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:23:54 AM EST
    Dems would admit `failure'  of whatever bill Obama signs. And that will not happen. I am already bracing myself for the speeches and spinning ad nauseam of how a miracle of "historical" proportions was achieved on HCR...

    I am fuming about the excise tax: it is ill conceived, ill defined (cadillac nonsense!) and extremely unfair to the blue collar and middle class. I would dare say it's probably worse financially than the Repubs idea of taxing health benefits.... How could the DEMS come up with that form of taxation it's beyond me.

    Parent

    yep (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by kempis on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:37:59 AM EST
    The middle class is not going to be happy with this bill no matter how hard the Obama administration spins it.

    It's like "we voted for health care reform and all we got was this lousy excise tax."

    Parent

    How? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jen on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:09:20 AM EST
    By putting someone in the WH and a slew of congresspeeps with a "D" after their names. The ultimate bamboozle. I think Rove knew what he was talking about when he spoke of a permanent Republican majority.

    Parent
    agree but.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:57:53 AM EST
    if they came out after CBo scores and said

    "it is not doable without mandates and fines and we will not so burden the American people and business in the face of this recession, we will revisit this in a year"

    ...well! I would say their approval would skyrocket and they would sweep in 10.

    so of course they wont do that

    they will levy mandates on Americans who are at their lowest in a generation

    Parent

    Can't we kill the bill... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:21:44 AM EST
    and future Dem majorities...from my seat both will do more harm than good.

    Parent
    Breaking (none / 0) (#41)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    Obama to meet with Dem caucus at 1:40, speak with press at 3 pm eastern  TPM

    Parent
    Surrender, Dorothy (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:56:28 AM EST
    I want the bill to fail now.  IMHO, Obama needs a clear FAIL in order to be forced to change--or be revealed once and for all as the sham he is.

    The mandates have to go (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    because the sunset that is will eventually - and naturally -  come on the subsidies.  There is no premium cost containment and deals with private insurers will continue to be ad hoc and all over the place.  That will become an untenable burden on the taxpayer eventually especially if this economy continues to struggle for years to come - estimates say at least seven more now and no return to the high in employment...  

    Maybe the only thing we could do is to trigger a moratorium on the mandate if subsidies are cut.  Because that's my biggest fear really.  That a Congress in the not so distant future will reduce the subsidies and other assistance and the mandate will remain in place.

    The real problem is lack of a COLA (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:58:15 AM EST
    on the subsidies. they will not match the price at first and the disparity will only grow.

    Parent
    Yes and as you know, it is fairly (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:15:11 AM EST
    common for Congress to quietly reduce this kind of assistance when they are looking for ways of reducing spending.  These are the kinds of reductions that get into bills in the last hour - or even early on if the losers in the deal are poor enough and don't have much of a lobbying presence - and poof they're reduced or gone.

    The fact that the government is not negotiating rates also just creates a pressure and unpredictability derived from these subsidies that will, I believe, become untenable ultimately.  I make a bad deal with my private insurer, you do too, various companies make bad deals and in the end the tax payer is picking up the tab for our inability to get a decent deal.  That's not only inefficient, it is also likely to be difficult to anticipate what costs will be from year to year.

    Parent

    Likely to happen to THIS bill (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:19:58 AM EST
    Ben Nelson is still undecided you know.

    Parent
    And another good point. (none / 0) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:33:15 AM EST
    nt

    Parent
    Oh, Jeebus (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by lambert on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:35:56 AM EST
    The GENIUS Dems really did manage to frame universal health care as welfare.

    Gag. Spew.

    Parent

    Elite liberals don't see middle, working (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by esmense on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    class and poor Americans as fellow citizens with different (and legitimate although competing) economic interests (than their own) and an equal right to a voice and vigorous representation in the political arena. They see them as supplicants who must wait on their betters' grand generousity. They don't see them as people who deserve respect (and whose well-being is as essential to the general welfare as their own), but as problems to be solved (mostly in the context of the elite's own self-interest). When push comes to shove, in terms of their concept of people outside their class, they differ from elite conservatives most clearly only in their irritating and self-congratulatory sense of Noblesse oblige.

    That's why they see universal health care as welfare rather than a right and a necessity that serves the broadest social and economic interests. Why they prefer subsidies (that must be "deserved" and qualified and begged for) to affordability. Why they insist on mandates for consumers over mandates and regulations for providers, etc., etc.

    If you believe there is such a thing as an "under class" you may be an elite liberal. If you see racism as a problem of class rather than morality, rail against "rednecks," "trailer trash" and the racism of the "uneducated" working class while mostly ignoring the reality that serious systematic racism arises mostly from the prejudices, and desire to protect their own privilege, of educated elites (that control the system), you may call yourself a liberal, but you are certainly not free of prejudice; both class and racial. If you worry about the fate of chickens in factory farms, and don't give a second thought to near slavery conditions in which many farm workers toil, you may think you are a "social" liberal at least, but you don't even make it that far in my book.

    I'm tired of trying to make common cause with elite, "social" liberals. They don't share, even vaguely understand or care about the best economic interest of 90% of Americans. And their "liberalism" doesn't seem to have much purpose other than to obscure that fact.

    Parent

    That's all that's left (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:43:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Not with a bang but a whimper (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lambert on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    Now watch them move the implementation dates forward from 2014. Locking it down!

    Parent
    Could yesterday have been... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by magster on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:55:05 AM EST
    ...any more dispiriting, with all the usual suspects playing their roles to a T with the most feared result playing out?  

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:58:41 AM EST
    But I expected this all along to be honest.

    Parent
    I had hope (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by magster on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:14:54 AM EST
    that the right thing might trump corruption and narcissism.  The votes were there for reconciliation, just not the leadership.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:19:19 AM EST
    Perhaps not. But we never had a chance to find out.

    Parent
    We never do (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    because they never try.

    We need somebody as tough and stubborn as Joe Lieberman in leadership.

    Parent

    true...we'll never know (none / 0) (#20)
    by kempis on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:34:09 AM EST
    All we know is that reconciliation mattered less to this administration that clinging to the post-partisan unity shtick, which is rapidly costing it the respect of people on the right and the left and the center.

    Today, I miss Jimmy Carter. I know the right likes to say that Obama is the new Carter, but Carter at least would fight for what he thought was right, even if it cost him politically, and it did.  

    But these are different days. These days, our presidents "govern" according to the dictates of their PR crew. That was probably the biggest permanent change ushered in by the carefully staged Reagan administration.

    Parent

    Face it (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by lambert on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    It has nothing to do with schtick.

    The legacy parties are owned. They're not the same, they alternate, but they're both owned.

    Parent

    Carter v. Obama (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:05:02 AM EST
    Seems like the main similarity between Carter and Obama is the result - they are both fairly ineffectual.

    But I've been puzzling over their differences that bring them to that end result.

    With Carter, I think there was a sincere moral commitment to liberal policy, but lack of political savvy and know-how to get it done. End result - ineffectual.

    With Obama, I don't see the commitment at all, yet he can definitely be savvy if he wishes to. End result - ineffectual.

    Parent

    Other than getting himself (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by dk on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:08:24 AM EST
    elected President (which Carter also managed to do), I'm not sure I see much evidence of Obama's political savvy.  Did you have something in mind?

    Parent
    He is persuasive (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    when he wishes to be. He could have done something meaningful on HCR if he wanted to.

    Parent
    You're Kidding! (none / 0) (#108)
    by rennies on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    Persuasive on what -- except his own conmanship?

    Parent
    Who has he persuaded to do what? (none / 0) (#118)
    by rennies on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    Except get himself elected. Speak loudly and carry no stick, seems to characterize Obama. To wit, excoriating the "greedy bankers" at the same time that he gives them everything they want.

    Parent
    Afghanistan (none / 0) (#109)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:33:54 PM EST
    he seems to have convinced most of America to back him to the hilt- post Nobel his Afghan policy is pretty conclusively backed.

    Parent
    In less than 6 months (none / 0) (#114)
    by dissenter on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    That favorable number will be below 40%.

    Parent
    They are giving him time on Afghanistan (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:03:04 PM EST
    because he did not cross McCrystal. That policy was pre-sold before Obama signed on to it. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Obama had come to a different conclusion.

    Parent
    What makes you think Obama lacks (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:21:34 AM EST
    commitment?  I think he is committed, but not to what we would like him to be committed to.

    Parent
    Obama does not believe in public enterprise (none / 0) (#98)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    as a solution in itself in the way FDR or LBJ democrats do. I think he would probably be more excited in solutions involving public-private partnerships. That is an impression I got by listening to him a long time ago.

    Parent
    Just like Tony Blair (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lambert on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:43:23 PM EST
    And we know how that worked out...

    Parent
    The only thing he is committed to (none / 0) (#119)
    by rennies on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:33:19 PM EST
    is himself -- since he has flip flopped on every issue he stated in the campaigns that he believed in.

    He aggrieves me as much as George W. Bush did.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:23:56 AM EST
    I see no reason to pass this bill. All i keep hearing is that we can't hurt Obama's feelings and we must let him have a "win" even if everybody in the country now becomes a "loser". If this passes with mandates and little else then the Dems deserve the wipeout they are going to get in 2010 and 2012.

    As long as you're at your computer (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:52:02 AM EST
    you might as well send some messages to your representation. They need to know they are being watched, and that the public understands what they are doing.

    Parent
    What I Sent to Lloyd Doggett (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by sumac on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    Dear Mr. Doggett,

    It is with a sad spirit that I write this letter. 2009 and should have been a year of true hope and change for our country with a Democratic President and congressional majorities.

    Instead, we have seen a bailout of Wall Street (while main street struggles to survive), the continuation and expansion of Bush's "security" measures while the Constitution hangs in shreds, an ineffectual stimulus, a ramp up to more war on foreign soil. And now we are looking at "Health Care Reform" that is no more than a giant give away to the insurance industry - I guess Wall Street got theirs, now it's Big Insurance and Pharma's turn.

    The bill that is (d)evolving as it makes its way through the Senate will do more harm than good. To mandate insurance coverage (which is something entirely different than health care, as anyone who has battled insurance companies to actually pay for care, knows) with little or no price controls on that insurance and no public or government competition to the issuers of said insurance, is unthinkable.

    People are struggling to survive. Unemployment has skyrocketed. The middle class is on the brink of extinction. To mandate that these people (and the poor) buy junk insurance or pay a fine is worse than any scheme by the Republicans...and this is coming from our Democratic Congress with the support of our President. How? Why?

    The Democrats will wear this like an albatross for years to come. And I really don't care about the reputation of the Democrats anymore - if they are as beholden to special interests as Republicans then we're really splitting hairs when we compare the two parties. But what I do care for is the well being of the people of this country - the people who overwhelming voted into office Democrats who would, supposedly, change the course of our country and get us back on track.

    Poll after poll indicate that he people of this country want health care - not health insurance - health CARE. And when those people who could not afford insurance in the first place are faced with buying insurance they still can't afford, or paying the lower-cost fine, what do we have? People who are that much more out of pocket, having paid the fine, with still no access to affordable health care.

    This bill is criminal. It should die quickly and quietly and if it's a mark against Obama so be it. Maybe he will learn to take a lead on these matters he claims are so important to him. Maybe he will realize that "bipartisan" support is meaningless if the opposition is out to destroy you. Passing something, anything, so Obama can have a win is the absolute worst rational for passing this bill. This is not about Obama (though he seems to think it is). It's about the people who hired him.

    I urge you to vote "no" on this bill. Maybe we can address heath care in the near future and get it right. I will remain hopeful of that possibility.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.


    Parent

    Ahhhh - great letter (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    These are the kinds that actually get read. No threats or screaming emotion, just solid, down to earth truths from the people who these people impact when they cast their legislative votes.

    Parent
    Lord (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:29:00 AM EST
    I go away for a weekend, and when I come back, health care is in total shreds.

    The argument is blah blah "health care reform is hard" as if that were proven to be more true than "the Democratic Party is broken."  We have a party with a significant lack of cohesion on the issues and more important now, no set tactical approach aside from bipartisanship.  The Republican tactical approach is go for broke.

    Also this is funny:

    Tom Harkin has pretty much caved, although I can't say that I blame him. Reid swung for the fences and struck out. Some people, including myself and apparently including Rahm Emanuel, warned that Reid was taking an unnecessary risk by buckling under to well-meaning progressive pressure to put the public option in the base bill. As we predicted, the bill got picked apart and held up for ransom. We could have had a trigger as a starting point in negotiations. [emphasis supplied]
    Sounds like W talking (none / 0) (#123)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:08:46 PM EST
    about things involving "hard work" as tho he invented the concept during his presidency.

    Parent
    Michael Douglas (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ricosuave on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:45:34 AM EST
    I am sure we are going to see the scene from American President play out in real life, and Obama will make a huge speech dumping the horrifically compromised bill and start over to produce real reform.  The press will cheer.  The republicans will be despondent.  And it will all be for the love of a good woman.

    I just know this will happen any minute now.  I am watching CNN and waiting for the speech.

    Better movie moment (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:51:03 AM EST
    "Dave"

    Parent
    I really hope you're going to clarify (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    otherwise I'm going have to assume you want Obama to have a stroke.

    Parent
    That would be as silly as (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    everyone assuming HRC meant she wanted him assassinated when she talked about history and RFK...

    In the movie, Dave wants a jobs bill, but it means cutting a pet project of the First Lady's (homeless shelters, especially for children).  He gets his old buddy Murray, an accountant, to go through the budget and ends up cutting enough money to fund the project and convinces the cabinet to go along (thwarting the evil chief of staff Alexander). The press cheered, America cheered, and everyone was happy as "the President" fought off special interests and stood up for the little gal and guy.

    Much like our own President.  <snark>

    Parent

    From one of my favorites (none / 0) (#82)
    by cenobite on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    "Can you guarantee me that ending?" -- Griffin Mill, The Player

    Parent
    Well he has been cribbing (none / 0) (#110)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:35:42 PM EST
    and/or in agreement with the first few years of "the West Wing" .

    Parent
    Very funny!!!! (none / 0) (#120)
    by rennies on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:35:04 PM EST


    Parent
    This statement has me puzzled (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    Given the political power of the insurance industry, the only reason there has been a discussion about health care reform this year is because the carrot of mandates could be dangled.

    I do realize the absolute truth in this, but question Obama. He boasted and boasted that the biggest chunk of his campaign donations came from little amounts from millions of people...they were the ones who he was indebted to. Now he is sending out requests for more money from those little people telling them he needs the cash to buy the votes from congress because the lobbyists are out there filling pockets and getting promises.

    CAMPAIGN REFORM first! Our health and well-being is dependent upon congressional members being able to run a wildly expensive campaign every 2 or 6 years??

    And Obama is against finance reform (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    because he supposedly proved we don't need it because it is so easy to raise enough money from small donors via the internet.

    "if dirt were dollars, I wouldn't worry anymore."  Don Henley

    Parent

    Obama's campaign cash (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:13:31 AM EST
    did not come primarily from small donors, Obama campaign propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. Obama knows which side his bread is buttered on.

    Parent
    I haven't checked the totals (none / 0) (#77)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    but, the total of small campaign funds from individuals could well have exceeded the amount given by medical insurance companies. I'm positive they didn't exceed the total of all corporate donations, though.


    Parent
    Obama used his small donors (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    as a front, the way some nail salons use their cash customers.

    Parent
    I don't think you understand. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Susie from Philly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:12:39 AM EST
    People will simply refuse to comply with the mandate. I know I will. I'm not going to become an indentured servant to the insurance industry.

    I hope that is true (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:18:42 AM EST


    Parent
    I think it is. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:28:11 AM EST
    If I remember the fines correctly, much cheaper than sh*t insurance that will break the budgets of many.

    Won't his SOTU speech coincide with most people paying their first increased insurance payments next year? Some people saw 20-30% increases . . . . COBRA is running out for many etc. Should be a real hit . . . .

    Parent

    IRS (none / 0) (#90)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    yes well the bill gives the IRS the powa to fine you so good luck with that!

    Parent
    I for one (none / 0) (#116)
    by dissenter on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    Will be the first one to sign up for the lawsuit against this bulls$T. I am guessing between tea partiers and progressives they could sign up tens of millions of Americans on the law suit.

    Parent
    Ah, I give up. A confession. (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Nathan In Nola on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:22:13 AM EST
    For a while now, I have been one of the Obama sympathists. I don't know, I just had confidence in him. Even as the red flags kept piling up, time and again, I started having doubts, but I just wasn't ready to give up that rare hope that things were finally turning around... But watching this health care train go off the tracks over and over until we finally got the flaming pile of wreckage the Senate is about to push through -- and knowing that Obama will boast of it from the highest towers (pushing him solidly into an A-!) -- I just can't take it anymore.

    I'm so frustrated... I just can't stand Obama anymore, I thought he had a spine but he doesn't (btw, a B+?!?! are you friggin kidding me!?!?). And the Democrats in the Senate look like bumbling, impotent insurance lackeys. All this work, all these people depending on them, and they let Joe Lieberman -- of all the people, Joe friggin Lieberman -- call the shots!?!? And they'll all come out of this patting themselves on the back and laughing all the way to the bank.

    I was so hopeful after that last election... and it's all gone. I remember Obama bragging about how he's not the first president to work on health care but he's determined to be the last. Damn, I sure hope not.

    BTD was right -- they all disappoint.

    And I think the end result, in addition (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    to terrible legislation, will be that a lot of people who have been trying to hang onto a reasonably high enthusiasm level for the Democratic party since the 2006 mid-terms are feeling burned out, beaten-up and just plain betrayed, and are likely to check out altogether from the national electoral process (they might continue to vote on local offices).  

    Along with that will be a continuing drop-off in contributions to Democratic campaign coffers; I've told the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC to leave me the hell alone and stop asking me for money because I'm not giving them one penny - and I know a lot of people who are telling these organizations the same thing.

    And you are not alone in being livid at the prospect of seeing Obama take credit for historic legislation; who knew the return to indentured servitude, to insurance companies this time, would be something to brag about?

    Parent

    He won't be the last (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:59:14 PM EST
    ... but he'll probably be the last in my lifetime.

    And what doesn't get done in the first year of his term, doesn't get done.

    I'm tuning out of news, tuning into sports talk, working puzzles and returning to math topics I left decades ago.

    And Obama may have pulled off a lot of con jobs in the primary, but he never pretended to be anything other than what you see before you now.

    If you got fooled, 'twas because you fooled yourself.

    Parent

    Corruption (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:36:01 AM EST
    And we have people in Washington outraged at the corruption in Afghan and Iraq. Talk about brass Ba$$s! Why is their corruption any worse than our own?

    We have hundreds of politicians in Washington who are bought and paid for by corporate America. They've chosen to ignore the will of the people in order to serve their paymasters. Until we clean up campaign financing, we're doomed to dance to our corporate masters.

    Question (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    If Lieberman can stop the bill in it's tracks, why can't a progressive senator do the same thing to this bill?

    first (none / 0) (#89)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    ...we need a progressive Senator...

    is Feingold locked away someplace?

    Parent

    It was a mistake from the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Realleft on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:24:19 AM EST
    HCR should never have been touched this year.  This isn't the degree of failure that Clinton had with the issue, but it's not much better.

    I never had any hope that it could be accomplished this year and I know a lot of people wanted it to be, but the better focus would have been to keep rebuilding the economy and not spend the better part of a political year distracted by something that wasn't going to happen anyway.  Big waste of momentum.  And the empty spin will eventually become clear to people who are expected to pay out of pocket money that they just don't have.

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    that it was by definition a mistake this year. Clearly a mistake for Obama, though, since he's good at getting elected but can't do the job.

    Parent
    worse (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    I think its worse, with Clinton losing at least we still WANTED IT and fought for it and got SCHIP

    with this POS all Americans will hate the idea and we lose even the argument for it

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#99)
    by Realleft on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    I should have been more clear to say I was thinking political outcome not substantive outcome (though BC bounced back for sure and wasn't finished as was the goal of Rs then as well).  Obama seems poised to get media favor from this initially at least as doing something no other Pres has been able to do, which could increase clout if he capitalizes on it. Not that many people pay much attention to know much beyond the headlines.

    Overall, on substance, I'm still of two minds, not sure if the inch forward (is it still an inch forward?) may allow for more substantial revisions once it's clear to everyone that even with this "reform," many people still can't afford decent health care. Vs. an outcome that I think Obama may be right about - if nothing passes, there may not be another chance for a long time.

    Dems do not have the machine (spine? smarts? guts?) for moving things through like the Rs did 2001-2006, though, that's for sure.  Should've called it PATRIOT Act Part II and at least had a little PR framing power on their side along with advance better arguments for passing something better than this.

    Parent

    I've been sputtering and mumbling (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    for hours now; what is there to say that hasn't already been said?  

    We know the Dems squandered a huge opportunity to put together a good, solid bill , and that, instead of giving away all the good stuff in the interest of the Holy Grail of getting 60 votes, they could have held reconciliation over the GOP's and Blue Dogs' heads, and threatened to make it even more liberal if they didn't get on board.  

    They could have had a little come-to-Jesus meeting with Obama and told him they were going to go for as many marbles as they could, and Obama could either get with the program, be a leader on it, and take credit for it, or risk being seen as being as obstructionist as the Republicans, and be blamed for its failure: his choice.

    The truth is that Obama was never going to be the catalyst behind reforming the system, no matter how many summits he held or speeches he gave; that was clear to me from the beginning, when he talked about health care in terms of our needing a "uniquely American" system that wasn't too "disruptive."  

    He truly does not get it, and he didn't have enough people - or maybe any people - around him who did; when you surround yourself with Wall Streeters and think the way to fix the system is to get the advice of representatives of the industry that broke it, the kinds of solutions you get are not the kind that actually solve the problems and help people.  When you go behind closed doors and work out deals with the industry, your loyalty is to the deal, not to the people; I don't care how many times he invokes his dying mother, the truth is that I think he sees us the same way the insurance industry does, and that is not the mindset one needs to reform a broken system.

    At this stage, the most courageous thing the Democrats could do is just pull the plug on this effort; instead they are going to treat it as if it were Terri Schiavo and they have to keep it alive at all costs.

    What do you suppose would happen (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:18:26 AM EST
    if people started mass picketing at all health insurance company locations? Demanding their employers find a way to self-insure? Create more flat rate facilities that refuse to take insurance like those in WA State?

    Parent
    This is it for a generation (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:33:17 AM EST
    If we don't get it done now, it's done for good.  So says the WH machine.

    In a provocative argument designed to rescue his foundering health-care plan, President Barack Obama will warn Senate Democrats in a White House meeting Tuesday that this is the "last chance" to pass comprehensive reform.

    Obama will contend that if it fails now, no other president will attempt it, aides said.

    White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told POLITICO: "If President Obama doesn't pass health reform, it's hard to imagine another president ever taking on this Herculean task. For those whose life's work is reforming health care, this may be the last train leaving the station."

    Previewing the message, Vice President Joe Biden said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe": "If health care does not pass in this Congress ... it's going to be kicked back for a generation."



    Parent
    hard sell (none / 0) (#87)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    yes well after the shenanigans these guys are pulling I doubt a DEM majority for a generaiton so that would fit

    Parent
    I guess they gave up the (none / 0) (#124)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    meme: If no healthcare bill, the U.S. is going to go bankrupt.

    The public is overwhelmingly in favor of real healthcare & insurance reform.  It can come back whenever there's a leader willing to provide real support.  

    Parent

    Stupak (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Emma on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    Good thing women got sold out on Stupak so that we could get that public option.

    Neo-feudalism (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    Marcy Wheeler has a good read on the mandate (via Crooks and Liars) Insurance Monopolies

    [When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws will be.

    I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don't understand is the nonchalance with which we're about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.

    We've seen our Constitution and means of government under attack in the last 8 years. This does so in a different-but every bit as significant way. We don't mandate tithing corporations in this country-at least not yet. And it troubles me that so many Democrats are rushing to do so, without considering the logical consequences.]

    Sunrise single payer (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by good grief on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:06:35 AM EST
    I say don't "sunset the mandate" but let the bill die its natural death deserved since the major competitive safeguards were already stripped out step by step. Better to pass some piecemeal regulations on private insurance (temporary since insurers won't pay attention to regs) and sunrise single payer -- a figure of speech invented to peg rise of SP after election of less corrupted Dems not owned by insurance and pharma lobbies (and energy and other industries), around 2012 or beyond, picking a better prez while we're at it.

    You know the drill but I'll say it anyway as quickly as I can:  We need campaign finance and media reform to break the vicious cycle between campaign contributions spent on campaign advertising which keep politicos in the pockets of not only corporations but big media, and keeps the media denigrating politicians (for entertainment ratings) so the general public is kept ignorant and never takes the system seriously enough to realize we are dying of it. We're trapped by these two major reform imperatives before we get to square one of HCR. We're about to be whammed in the puss with a possible Supreme Court ruling (FEC v Citizens United) that might allow corporations to directly fund election campaigns and most of the brightest people on the planet don't know how to crack the nut of "corporate personhood," or get the SC to crack it.

    So, first things first. After fresh Dem blood elected under the frame of `priority of the public interest' or `putting people first' (essential Dem platform), fix campaign finance and reform media ownership, provide free air time for candidates, open up more public information channels, etc, then bring along legislation for single payer (and energy, environment, education, etc) once we've paved the way for serious policy in the public interest (No more Mr Presonality, please, no more hollow logo/superbrands).

    The frames are already standing there. Obama has handily made clear how dishonest private insurers are. One of our best Talk Lefters (Anne) recently pointed out the simple but powerful argument that "with unemployment rising at the start of Obama's term, that would have been the perfect opportunity to disconnect health care insurance from employment." We could have inserted single payer into that slot, not as a health plan but as an economic plan.

    We still can.

    It'll be a bootstrap operation but we can do it if we have our priorities straight. I expect BTD will laugh at me for being so idealistic as to talk about SP but it is talking itself all around me and becoming the elephant in the room. Or the donkey if we play our cards right. I think without making a fight someday soon for SP we won't have a party.

    Meant to say (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by good grief on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 12:40:21 AM EST
    without making a fight someday soon for campaign and media reform followed by SP, we won't have a party.


    Parent
    I know exactly what will be in the bill (none / 0) (#5)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:06:40 AM EST
    Pork, pork, and more pork. And along with the pork, millions of new customers for the insurance industry that paid to get this president elected.

    Plus some other junk.

    Next question.

    So what happens if a conference bill (none / 0) (#10)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    has a public option of medicare buy in?  Can Lieberman filibuster again to remove it?

    I guess the shorter question is whether conference bills can be filibustered?

    Yes, conference reports can be filibustered (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by beowulf on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:39:22 AM EST
    That's why if this trainwreck makes it through the Senate, the White House's plan is for the House to simply approve the Senate bill so no conference committee is necessary.

    We'll see if the House Democrats are as weak as Senate Democrats (Magic 8-ball says yes).

    Parent

    Well every House member is up for re-elect (none / 0) (#56)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:10:19 AM EST
    so a bit of a different dynamic.

    Parent
    Sounds like a good idea to me (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:13:00 AM EST
    but I'm sure Joe Lieberman and President Snowe would find it very worrisome.

    Pres Snowe (none / 0) (#86)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    this morning said even tho she is working on Amendments she wants to make it clear even if those amends pass she is not likely to vote for the bill as it stands now, she is trying to make it better tho'

    so they needed Lieberman

    Lieberman says as many as 10 Sens were against the medicare buy in, he si their cover guy I guess

    Clare McCaskill Ugh-Mo said it had to reduce the deficit for her vote...

    Parent

    Durbin says (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    They will have 60 by next week (remember - these people want to get out of town nxet week for the holiday).

    Democrats will have enough votes to pass healthcare reform in the Senate by next week, said Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday.

    Durbin defended concessions made by Democrats to win over centrists' votes, and rejected using the budget reconciliation process to force through a more aggressive health bill.

    "We are moving toward 60 -- we think we'll have it by next week," Durbin said during an appearance on MSNBC. "There's so many positive things in this bill, I think we see our way to pass it and make things significantly better for most families."
    FOS (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:37:24 AM EST
    and Durbin knows it.

    But what else is he supposed to say?

    Parent

    What else is Durbin supposed to say? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:19:06 AM EST
    He could paraphrase himself from last summer:

    The insurance companies frankly own the place.


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:25:53 AM EST
    That would have at least been honest.  I could respect that.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:41:03 AM EST
    But I think it means he looks scared for the fallout that will come.

    Parent
    It's coming (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:43:41 AM EST
    bloodbath next November.

    May even lose the House.

    Parent

    I just don't see it. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:02:43 AM EST
    Most people in this country are apparently ready to be owned by, and give up their lives to, corporation profits. Other than on this blog and a few others, I don't hear many people talking about this - they just still think Obama is cool. Their expectations for politicians to help them are nil. I don't see a revolution coming.

    Parent
    they may still like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    but that doesn't mean they will be motivated to vote for Senators/Reps in 2010.

    Republicans will definitely be motivated to vote.

    Unfortunately, a "revolution" would probably be better, since it might mean a few primary wins over incumbents, and new Dems in rather than Republicans.

    The problem we are facing now is apathy.

    Parent

    But will they really enable (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    more republican wins, when push comes to shove? Usually, they are scared enough of that to vote D, no matter how feeble D is.

    Parent
    usually? (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    with the exception of the past 3 years, the house and senate were in the hands of Republicans since the 90's.

    Those wins were a product of more D's showing up and more R's staying staying home.  The R's certainly won't be staying home this time.  And there is no Bush to beat up on to rile up Dems.  I don't know if the "usual" suspects will be enough to beat a riled up R base.

    I do know that whatever happens, I won't be staying home.  Because as my father would say "the only thing worse than Democrats are Republicans".  But I don't if that's enough for people who need something extra.

    Parent

    This is officially now my favorite saying (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:41:44 AM EST
    "the only thing worse than Democrats are Republicans"

    I shall use it frequently.

    Parent

    I beg to differ. We've just moved to Austin 2 (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by suzieg on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 06:55:10 PM EST
    weeks ago (ironically to lower my health insurance premiums by $380 monthly) and everyone we've met, including the AT&T guy who came to install my 2 lines, are talking about it to us (maybe it has to do with my husband's British accent)and are pi$$ed beyond words at this give-away to the health care industry and the behind closed doors deal with big Pharma. They all agree that it's a simple give-away to the health insurance industry!

    Parent
    Especially when (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    they start to learn the details of what the bill becomes.  Everyone uses health care - when they find out many things won't start for years, when they realize they will have to buy a plan they may hate, with subsidies that won't reflect COLA, when they're employer cancels their plan so they can go in the exchange, when they see the potential cuts in Medicare, when they are tazed on their good insurance plans.....then people will realize how they've been bamboozled.

    This will be a short term victory for Obama and the Dems, but a long term disaster (politically and in reality).

    Parent

    I think you are overestimating (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    the level of interest that most Americans have with the nuts and bolts of this issue.

    I doubt they will ever really "learn the details".

    And frankly, while I think this plan has serious problems, I don't see your disaster scenario playing out.  Or if it does, I don't see that scenario as being drasticly different from anything that's happening today.  People are too used to being screwed.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    People are too used to being screwed.

    That's it, in a nutshell.

    Parent

    I disagree - People already are aware of (none / 0) (#125)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:24:35 PM EST
    the important details.  Those in favor of scrapping current Senate bill and having no healthcare legislation outnumber those in favor of Senate bill 44-41 according to yesterday's WSJ-NBC poll.

    Parent
    Just read new poll (none / 0) (#126)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:40:56 PM EST
    Research 2000

    shows voters supporting health care bill with a public option by 59% to 31%--

    But only 33% support Senate bill

    This is a disaster waiting to happen -- not only for the Dem party, but for Americans, and we know it.


    Parent

    They will learn the details (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    When they plan on and expect some great change in their lives (like getting affordable coverage), and they can't, when they are taxed on the good plan they have, etc.  It won't take long to learn the details.  And yes, we are used to being screwed, but this is going to hit home and hit fast.  I think there will be whiplash from the sonic-fast outrage that is about to poured down on the politicians.

    Parent
    Maybe in the past, but not today with (none / 0) (#122)
    by suzieg on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    our economy being what it is. People are looking for ways to save money and are probably edging their bets on this bill to lower their HC cost. Wait until they learn that they'll be paying more for less while Obama keeps helping out Wall Street and the banks - there will be hell to pay in 2010!

    Parent
    The R Campaign ads are (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    writing themselves.

    Parent
    They won't even have to make things up (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:34:56 PM EST
    or lie. Although I doubt they will resist their normal tendency to do so.

    Parent
    Sad but true (none / 0) (#50)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:53:45 AM EST
    I think you're right. What really irks me about this whole scenerio is that after 8 years of GWB and the Republicans destroying every aspect of our government, the Democrat waltz in and blow an opportunity of a lifetime. As much as I cringe at the prospect of another Bush era, the Democrats deserve their fate.

    Parent
    As Andgarden said yesterday, (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    Nobody ever lost money betting on the Democrats to cave-in.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:10:29 AM EST


    Parent
    the best part of that post (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:41:59 AM EST
    "I am one of those progressives and I support the public option, but I can count. In the Senate, you need 60. And if you don't have 60, you're empty-handed," the Illinois Democrat explained. "And in this case, you need to find a way to get to 60 votes. And that means accommodating and making concessions on a lot of issues we'd rather not make concessions on."

    The concessions led Vice President Joe Biden to suggest on Tuesday that Lieberman will now finally support Democrats' health bill.

    Durbin also rejected using budget reconciliation, a tactic some liberal activists have urged that would allow Democrats to pass legislation with only 60 votes. The majority whip said that many substantive parts of the health bill would be gutted by such a move.

    "Reconciliation is a very spare and thin process with limited opportunities. For example, no insurance reform if we do reconciliation," Durbin said. "I think they understand, as we do, that's a very important element in this package."



    Parent
    I agree fully (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    However, I am getting tired of the "it's unconstitutional" argument. It's not.

    How would Hilary have faired? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    If she had been elected.  Do you think health care advancement would have been different. Would her and her husband had more influence on Congress?

    I think Obama who ran on reforming Washington as business as usual was all well and good but what you need when you want to pass a controversial bill is power. You get that power by doing business as usual.   Power you can use to intimidate your own party Reps and Senators.  You either play ball with me or your history in your re election.  I feel Obama just does not have the power that  Johnson had (mostly due to his time in government) or refuses to act in the way he did.  Johnson will go down in history as one of the president that accomplished and passed so many major bills. Most since FDR.  He was not liked like the Kennedy for his charisma but he had power.  Power rules.

    Isn't the power in holding the purse (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    strings to campaign contributions?  Does Obama have that?  If he does, this must be the HCR he wants sent to him for signature.

    Parent
    This is where (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    experience can really make a huge difference. Some will disagree, of course, but I think that Obama's inexperience--his lack of real clout, and his apparent failure to grasp how the levers of power can be used--has greatly contributed to this fiasco.

    That's the sympathetic view. Another possibility is that this fiasco is what Obama and his corporate handlers actually want.

    Parent

    Give. It. Up. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:22:55 AM EST
    Use your energy on what is really happening.

    Parent
    I just finished a pretty exhaustive study (none / 0) (#111)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    of past American Health Care Reform efforts and I think what we need is to convince the Insurance industry that covering poor people and people with pre-existing conditions is bad business-- its what made Medicare passable- the failure of industry to capitialize on programs like "Golden 65"- once it became clear that this wasn't profitable then the industry became far more open to change.  Well, that and/or co-opting the AARP- but unfortunately since they've become an insurance provider its become a lot harder to do that.

    Parent
    better (none / 0) (#84)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    she would have WAITED until the worst of the recession and the needed govt spending was past that is what she would have done

    PS She would NOT have cut a closed door deal with biog Pharma and Billy Tauzin to get the ball rolling

    AND she would have fought when it mattered

    Parent

    Why not do reconciliation next year? (none / 0) (#92)
    by nicolen922 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    Here's my question:  Why can't the democrats pass this inferior bill this year, and then use reconciliation to allow for a public option to be added in next year?  Or, for a medicare buy in, or whatever they want?  I don't understand why this has to be an all or nothing bill.  It seems to me that if Dems can use reconciliation now, they can use it in January.  Play Lieberman's game now, and screw him and all the other hold-outs through reconciliation.  

    Second question: After conference committee, will Reid still need the 60 votes to pass HCR?  Or will he only need 51?

    2010 will be used for campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    toward re-election. I doubt we'll see an improvement bill on the wonderful job they will have done in 2009. B+ is heading for A-, you know. And, I expect Obama's focus will be on his strength next year....campaigning on behalf of those he likes. Nevermind the approval ratings saying there is no B+ going home on his report card.

    We have a congress and an administration that has no interest in anything beyond their own personal agendas. It's time for the people to take on these causes themselves. I'll be voting for the I's from now on unless a D or an R can prove to me they want a job in gov't because they recognize who they work for.


    Parent

    You are of the belief that the D's (none / 0) (#93)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    will be in a majority beyond this?

    Parent
    2011 (none / 0) (#95)
    by nicolen922 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    they will be until 2011.  So, until that point, what's stopping them from passing a reconciliation bill next year?

    Parent
    The same thing that is stopping them (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:43:30 PM EST
    from passing a decent bill this year.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#107)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    Once a bill is passed it will be easier to improve on it. The debate moves to improvement of a bill, not about whether a bill should be passed or not.


    Parent
    Is it possible to improve the bill (none / 0) (#96)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:22:07 PM EST
    through reconciliation next year after a comprehensive list of ideas for cost cutting is put in place eg: imported drugs, putting more doctors, nurses and health care workers in the system (subsidizing medical school education in any education bill, bringing doctors into the country through immigration reform, use of technology, etc)?
    Is Harkin still working to change filibuster rules?

    Parent
    This HCR mess (none / 0) (#94)
    by samsguy18 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    It's all about Obama's ego. He could care less about the average American.The big winners the insurance industry and the malpractice lawyers(big contributors to Obama's campaign )

    Better Luck Next Time On HCR? Sunset The Mandate | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment