Last night on Countdown Howard Dean said something that didn't quite make sense

[WI_DEM]

and don't get me wrong I love Howard Dean and supported him all the way in 2004 and as DNC chair, but he said we should vote down this bill and then come back in "two years" and pass a stronger bill. But he also conceded that following the 2010 election that Demcrats are liable to have fewer members in the House and Senate than we do now, though he said he believed we would still have a majority.

Now if I were O'Donnell I would have asked Dr. Dean this, "How could Dems pass a stronger Health Care Bill in 2011 with fewer members in the house and senate than they now have--when you can't pass a stronger bill with Public Option in 2009?

[BlueCaliDem]

1. I'm a big Deaniac, but you're right. He made NO sense

because kowtowing to the scheme of the repubs and disenchanting the American people that much more since President Obama's other victories aren't even being mentioned anymore, before 2010 and 2012 is the repubs' plan to win back power by default. They know it, I know it, and Dean should know it too.

[Mojambo]

2. To make a football analogy...

You run a better play.

Sometimes play calling matters more than the amount of talent you have on the field.

New leadership in Congress would definitely be necessary, but I believe a better bill could be had (hard to get a worse one...), even with lesser majorities, if they go into it with a better plan.

[nightrain]

3. yes, indeed. Members of Congress would need to really form functional

coalitions. We can do our part by keeping their feet to the fire, and not accept watered down corporate-protecting proposals. Vote out the corporate dogs and vote in progressives.

[AndyA]

9. I think that's what Dean meant as well.

I saw the show, and that's what I thought at first. How can this be done with fewer Democrats? But if you have a stronger leader, and frame it differently, people will have had their premiums go up more, Dems could say they will continue to escalate, and this MUST be done, or only the wealthy will have health insurance.

I see Dean's point, and agree it could be done, but we'd need a much, much stronger leader than Reid. (A dead corpse would almost be better than Reid, of course...)

[RoyGBiv]

4. None of the "starting over" stuff makes sense ...

None of it. It's a pipe dream more grandiose than anything those who believe this bill is still worthy of being called reform are accused of having.

Even *if* the issue could be raised again, it would begin more conservatively than this one and would only become more conservative as it followed the legislative hallways.

[TheWraith]

5. You are absolutely correct. Dean was wrong.

About more than that, too--we don't get another chance at this in two years if we lose now. If this doesn't pass, then we're talking probably ten or twenty years.

[sendero]

16. "don't get another chance"

.... is a meaningless consideration if the current bill isn't worth having.

Here, eat this shit sandwich because there isn't another one coming for 10 years. What a pointless argument.

[TheWraith]

18. Let's see--an end to pre-existing conditions, regulation on premium increases...

No lifetime caps for claims, and a dozen other good things to rein in insurance companies? Yeah, that's "not worth having." We're better off with the status quo.

[iceman66]

6. We would be better off with less members but a stronger leadership

Harry Reid has been an absolute unmitigated disaster.

He is basically letting the Republicans run the Senate with 40 votes.

[WI_DEM]

7. I agree! Reid could be much stronger.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. At 40K deaths a year, that would be 80K more dead uninsured.

Unsupportable. I say that if this effort dies,

we HAVE to open Medicare tot he uninsured at subsidized rates TO SAVE AMERICAN LIVES!!! And I wouldn't give a rat's ass if Lieberman or the Republicans or the Blue Dogs don't like it. It will be EASY to defend as a temporary stopgap.

[cutlassmama]

10. Why can't we pass this mess and then go back in two years

and pass a better one?

[WI_DEM]

12. Dean wants it defeated and then start over in 2011

[optimator]

11. its not about dean

even if he didn't make sense.
This bill is a pile of shit regardless.

[NJmaverick]

13. You are perceptive enough to pick up on the lack of logic and consistency

in Dean's statements. Good for you and the fine critical thinking you displayed.

[Guilded Lilly]

14. He actually said

at one point that the Democrats should start over, and use simply majority-reconciliation and get a much better bill through. The Republicans would ram through anything they wanted without any problems or looking back because they were *meaner* and *tougher*. I can't fault that. It's true.

It would take fewer Democrats to get something passed in 2011 if they used reconciliation even if they did lose some of their majority in 2010; even with the budgetary limits of reconciliation they could come up with a truly solid bill that wasn't so damned watered down and impotent.

I am a huge Dean fan. I also believe in our President. But I think this bill will not save $, will not address the real needs of reform, and could very well be a victim of just getting *something* passed. I want the Democrats to be strong. Damnit. It's incredibly frustrating.

[librechik]

15. Because the desperation of those not having access to healthcare

will be much wider spread (remember--11,000 lose their coverage every DAY

And those in Congress (which demographics alone tell us will have more Dems in 10) will be less able to ignore the problem. It will be so urgent in fact that something might get done.

Just my guess.

[lame54]

17. they can pass a stronger bill now...

they always could

they just won't and that's the infuriating part