There won't be one liberal or progressive Senator who will vote against the HCR act

[still_one]

The question is have they abandoned their principles, or do they believe they can revise it after it becomes law?

[tekisui]

1. Is there any hope during conference with the House it will be better?

[cali]

3. no, there really isn't.

[ncteechur]

2. what do you think Bernie Sander's idea is? Russ Feingold? Al Franken? Sherrod Brown?

[tomm2thumbs]

4. Bernie Sanders is going to be speaking on Cspan... added link which might be Sanders

Sanders link - I am assuming this is current - as it is shown as Dec 19
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/290815-1

[gateley]

7. Thank you! It kind of saddens me to realize I'm more interested in what

Bernie has to say than Obama. :(

[tomm2thumbs]

8. they are certainly answering to different 'masters' so to speak

I'm thinking you'd be saying similar things about Obama if he were back in his Senatorial role, or at least I know I would

link to obama if running live

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/12/19/HP/R/27527/Pres+Obama+to+Talk+About+Health+Care+Bill+This+Afternoon.aspx

[gateley]

11. Good point - and you're right. I'm watching C-Span now and they anticipate

the reading of Reid's bill will conclude at approx 3:30 Eastern.

[tomm2thumbs]

15. the internet making it's value known today, for sure!

and as for anticipation, I'm supposing that pulling this off may have been like 2 daddy long leg spiders dancing - and if they pull off at the end of the it all a waltz, and everything is worked out, this could very well be an amazing feat of magnificence that will be talked about for decades. There is something to be said about having to get the rotted stupid thing over the threshold of being 'lawed in' vs. reconciled... and after a vote, reconciliation can be started at some point.

[gateley]

5. Yeah, I always look to them to help me understand, so I'm interested to

see their take on this.

[still_one]

6. I think they believe they can modify it after it becomes law, before it fully kicks in by 2014 /nt

[tomm2thumbs]

13. I am tending to agree - there are a lot of possibilities

this strange, bizarre soup they've cooked lets vulnerable folks vote against it after cloture... then, after elections in 2010, they can update the bill well before much of the systems come online.

If vulnerable senators/reps are voted out, they are that much more motivated to 'do the right thing' without pressure, and if they are voted in, they have cleared the election hurdle and can 'safely' vote without near-election jitters. If they aren't thinking this way now, I think it is up to the base putting their feet to the fire to make sure they will be thinking outside the box on this - big time.

[still_one]

18. It's a done deal, so the question is what are we going to do about it? Urge them to

reform it

[NJmaverick]

9. It may be the ruling is harder than standing on the sidelines hurling comments

as a result they have to take a more realistic approach to things.

[earthside]

10. I just can't believe it.

As I see it, the Senate leadership has sold-out to Sen. Nelson on abortion rights.

And I read here somewhere that Nelson said he would filibuster if the abortion language is changed in conference.

Progressive Senators must be fully under the spin of "passing anything" so they can get out of Washington in time for Christmas.

According to the Washington Post's summary:

"Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20... )

"Pay for coverage with a separate check"? Wow.

How many women 'plan' for this kind of procedure?

If you don't have employer coverage and you're a woman in an anti-choice state, well, you apparently don't even get the option of writing a separate check.

It actually sounds kind of sick, when you think about it.

Furthermore, this is a gift to the Right-to-Life crowd; they can now gin-up campaigns in every state in the union to "opt out." Republican strategists are going to absolutely love this.

The folks under dome in Washington are now operating in a room of mirrors ... politically, passing the Senate version of this legislation is going to be more devastating for Democrats in 2010 than not passing it.

[TorchTheWitch]

12. they care a hell of a lot more for their careers

They will do what they're told if they want campaign money, re-election and keep or get their chairmanships. That's how arm-twisting works.

[Kansas Wyatt]

14. Maybe they have been threatened by the Obama Administration...

To vote for it or lose all their funding, along with them finding someone to Primary against them.

You know, like they SHOULD have done to those fucking Blue (Republican) Dogs.

[davidwparker]

17. +1

[leftstreet]

19. +1

[Laelth]

16. There is no good reason to believe this bill will get better.

They still haven't fixed NAFTA, and they promised they would after it passed. It is very unreasonable to believe that this bill can be "fixed" any time soon. If this is the best the Federal Government can do, then the Federal Government should do nothing and let the states work on it individually.

If liberals vote for it, and I am not sure that all of them will, it will probably be for these reasons: (1) They want to be good soldiers. (2) They want to be good team players. (3) They want to support the President, and (4) they don't want to face Rahm's ire. In addition, they don't want to lose their offices or their committee chairmanships.

It won't be because the legislation is good in any way.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Shagbark Hickory]

20. We don't have enough of them to be effective.