I'm curious what DUers who wanted the HCR bill to fail think would happen if it failed.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

The Clinton administration made an abortive attempt at HCR and the issue was never again revisited during a two term presidency with a huge economic expansion (although it did get mired in a sex scandal).

It seems pretty clear to me that the immediate and overwhelming media narrative resulting from a bill failure would be about Obama's failed presidency and how the Democrats are unable to accomplish anything, and I think this would in fact make it even more difficult for other legislative initiatives to pass, and make an Obama loss in 2012 more likely (depending if the GOP could actually scare up a credible candidate).

Even if a preponderance of DU is in favor of, say, a single payer government funded plan, given how much resistance there is to even a public option among Democratic Caucus Senators, how could such a plan be expected to have a prayer of passage, even by reconciliation? This is what I'm having a hard time envisioning. Compromise bill fails, and then single payer bill opposed by even more Senators and guaranteed to bring Blue Dogs in on a GOP filibuster is going to pass? How?

My feeling is that if there hadn't been 60 votes for the bill, it would have totally precluded any revisiting of HCR during an Obama administration. The GOP is all about status quo on HCR, if they get in the White House in 2012 or take over Congress before then, nothing at all will happen while they control either or both branches, guaranteed.

So is the argument that it would be better that nothing at all passed during the Obama administration rather than this bill passing? Or that somehow a more palatable and better bill could in fact be passed after failure of this one? If so, please paint the picture of the political landscape that you think would allow this to happen. Election of 60 Kucinich clones to the U.S. Senate?

I'm talking political reality, not what people would like to see passed. Aside from dissatisfaction with this bill, with Obama, Reid etc., what did you see actually happening after failure of the bill? Or does that not matter?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Your points are well taken.

And I agree completely. We don't live in a theoretical world, we live in a real one.

We need to play the hand as it is dealt, like it or not.

K&R

[MercutioATC]

2. Perhaps Obama, Reid, and Pelosi could demonstrate some leadership...

...and the process could begin again, this time with clear statements from Congressional leadership and the White House.

[jaxx]

3. They have demonstrated leadership.

There are passed bills in both chambers.
When have you seen that before in health care reform?

This is getting nuts when people choose to ignore what has been done.

[MercutioATC]

27. Bullshit.

All three had the opportunity to state clear positions. None did.

Our definitions of leadership clearly differ.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. Do you think leadership would generate 60 votes for single payer gov't. care?

[Kansas Wyatt]

15. To bad Obama didn't have Bush's balls...

He could have called all 100 Senators to the White House and said: This is what the American People want, they voted for it in the last election and gave us a mandate to do it. Now, I do not give a hairy rat's ass whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, if any one of you put up a fight against what the American People desperately need, then I will be all over the news calling you out and I will find someone to support and campaign in your next primary or election. We are the only country that does this the back ass wards way and the American People want it changed immediately. Either you stand with the American People or you stand for your own self interest... Which is it?


Of course, he would have had to fire Rahm before he did this... But yes, he could have twisted their arms up around their necks and told them to get with the program or else count on getting thrown under the bus. Too bad he chose to spend his political capital against a different group.

[tigereye]

17. yes, that would have been nice... and it may be that he did do that

I'm not sure that Rahm is the main person to blame, though.

Odd how people seem to either ignore or totally absolve the Congress of any responsibility - I emailed all my Senators and Congressmen in favor of a public option. People themselves also have to take some responsibility for making their wishes known and not simply blame one perceived power broker.

I was actually at a social event that Rahm attended the night of some of the health care votes, and he was on his Blackberry the entire time, trying to get the damn bill passed. Doesn't that could for something? :shrug:

[Kansas Wyatt]

20. If Rahm calls this Health Care Reform...

Then it does not count for a damn thing, because it is NOT Health Care Reform... It's a GIVEAWAY to the Insurance Industry.
Are you sure Rahm wasn't cutting deals with Insurance Executives?

What is good for Corporate America, doesn't mean it's good for the American People. Think about that for awhile.

[cali]

34. um, what about Paul Krugman, Wendell Potter, Bernie Sanders

Howard Dean, etc? They all say that flawed as it is, it is reform.

[tigereye]

39. there were a lot of Senators and Reps who wouldn't vote for a public option

would it be better to have no options? More people will be able to have access to care. I know that Obama said that he did not intend to kowtow to the insurance industry... I don't think he had the power to totally get rid of it at this time.


Granted health insurance does not mean health care, necessarily. I'm not happy with the bill, either, but it's a start. Not sure when we will get this chance again. :shrug:

[madrchsod]

18. that would be lbj`s balls....

and if you have heard his tape about his pants you`d know what i`m talking about!

[MercutioATC]

29. Why are "we" (Congressional Dems) so scared of the filibuster?

[goclark]

8. Sounds like a Dream that is not based in reality to me

That can't happen because this Congress is not going to let it happen.

[MercutioATC]

28. Dems aren't going to let it happen.

We own the legislative and the executive. Any failure to pass legislation is our own.

[dkf]

5. They would have been forced to expand Medicare and Medicaid

Allowing us the chance to ditch the private insurance system

They would have done this through reconciliation with 51 senators.

I would be dancing in the streets.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I don't understand the realistic scenario under which that happens.

I think this bill is rather crappy, rather corrupt, and unfortunately the only game in town. Please explain the realistic scenario where 'reconciliation' (of what, a bill has to pass both houses to be reconciled) results in expanded medicare and medicaid, not really present in either bill, one of which you think should not have passed.

[dkf]

23. I believe it goes through budget reconciliation

And it is complicated requiring approval from various committee chairs. It's supposed to be used to make the budget work but it has been used 23 times in the last 20 years to make significant policy changes. You can't start anything new with it but you can tinker with existing programs. So expanding Medicare/Medicaid would be pretty simple rather than having to create exchanges and whole new regulatory structures.

Should be a no brainer but I don't think Obama supports it. Or should I say rahm.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. various committee chairs like for example Max Baucus

who gets a say in everything budget related. We can pretend that the Senate isn't composed of 88 corporate owned proud members of the kleptocracy and 12 outsiders, but that I think is the actual reality, that is the lesson (re)learned.

[dkf]

32. You never know til you try

[Hello_Kitty]

6. It's a moot point. It will pass.

The question now is: How will you sell it to the American people? I say "you" because I have no intention of plastering a smile on my face and pretending it's a great thing when it's not. You'll get your bill, and very soon, barring some calamitous unforeseen event. You need to convince people IRL that it's a good thing.

[leftstreet]

7. It's a gift to Insurance/Pharma - they had more to lose if it failed

Several gazillion boomers are about to start transitioning from private insurance to Medicare.

The largest percentage of medical coverage in this country is ALREADY taxpayer funded. They're trying to decrease that amount.

The road to Single Payer is NOT paved with mandated giveaways to private for-profit industries.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. So do you think that some kind of much better bill could be passed with these Senators?

[leftstreet]

14. 'some kind of much better bill'

jesus

[Warren Stupidity]

22. but that is the question.

Suppose the bill died on the cloture vote. Suppose that improbably enough the senate started over again. Why would the next bill be any different, in particular why would it be any better?


More realistically, if the senate bill had failed there would not be another attempt this session. If we lose seats in 2010, a very likely possibility, there would not be another attempt next session either. If we lose the presidency in 2012, it would be another 8-12 years before a bill would even be possible. This time and place, right now, this was the only chance we had. We got corrupt crap, but that crap is actually better than nothing.

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Those that oppose this bill, even as a socialist, Bernie Sanders, is *for* it

want the Democrats to lose power next year, and the WH the election thereafter.

The result: GOP back in power.

The conclusion: the continuing of the declination of the United States.

The fringe benefit: there'll be more to b*tch and moan about wouldn't there be?

But the question is, is this progress and do these so-called Progressives who are supposed to stand for progress in our country, see it as such? The answer could be, if reviving the repub power in Congress and the WH is their version of Progress, then perhaps.

This might not be a perfect bill, but you can't argue it isn't progress as 30 million more Americans will have health care.

[bfarq]

11. Stop with the straw man arguments already

There isn't a single person on this forum who wants to see health care reform fail. But there are some people who actually want to see health care REFORM<'b>, as opposed to a total capitulation to the corporations that have created this problem.

It is still possible if just a handful of Democrats stand up for our principles. It would not be a big problem to send the bill back to each chamber and take some REAL reforms through reconciliation. After all, nothing much happens under the current bill for 5 years. Even if reconciliation took an extra 60 days, we could still get some real reforms in place FOUR YEARS EARLIER.

And if Lieberman, Baucus, and Nelson get their feelings hurt in the process, that's just an added bonus.

[Nikki Stone1]

12. Your entire OP is political. The concerns of many of us are economic

If you are really interested in what people think and not just trying to use politics to make an economic argument, then I'll be happy to respond. But as of now, your question is merely rhetorical.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. Yes. My entire post is political. Is your answer "I don't care about the political consequences"?

[Nikki Stone1]

16. Is your OP, "All I care about is the political consequences and fuck the people who would struggle?"

See how easy it is to make a cheap rhetorical shot?

;)

[AllentownJake]

36. OMG what will happen to Obama if we don't pass a shitty bill?

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn because a shitty bill is going to hurt him as much or more than no bill.

[WeDidIt]

19. You are using logic and good analysis

Therefore the Firebaggers will attack you relentlessly for your "crazy talk."

[AllentownJake]

37. Cheerleaders will cheer anything

Surprise, surprise

[doc03]

25. No HCR bill is better than a bad one n/t

[customerserviceguy]

26. We try again in 2013

If the current HCR fails (hell, it isn't even a "current" bill until it comes out of committee, looking like some kind of Frankenstein's monster of legislation) then we chalk it up to a failure of leadership.

The Obama Administration had a brief window of opportunity, that was from January until the July recess. During that time, they prioritized and completed a stimulus plan to bring the economy back from the edge of the abyss. If they succeeded in restoring the economy, we get a new lease on life in the 2012 elections, when President Obama is on the ballot again, and his coattails bring in Democratic officeholders all the way down the ballot.

If we have a failure of the economic stimulus, than whatever we accomplish will be undone by the Rethugs. HCR was a bite too big for us to swallow, obviously, since we really haven't been able to do it right. One thing we gain from a few years is that more people will see that the current system is broken, and they will join us in the clamor for change.

[JVS]

30. Since most of it kicks in in 2013 anyway, "conditions on the ground" would be the same as now...

with the minor differences of no rally in insurance company stocks.

[Edweird]

31. Apparently a lot of us don't want this RW crap bill. That's the political reality.

And while it may be somewhat more likely that he will lose a second term bid if this bill fails, I'm pretty sure it's guaranteed he will be a single term president if they pass it. The insurance companies are the problem, and everybody knows it. Giving them a government mandated monopoly is the dumbest possible choice. Nobody but the starriest eyed 'true believers' want that. When you add the half a billion dollar cuts to Medicare, well, it starts to look like they are killing off the single payer choice we DO have in a massive act of privatization. That is especially politically suicidal. If this bill passes in it's present form, I believe it will be the end of Dem power for quite some time. If by some magic a strong public option finds its way into the bill during reconciliation, then it will be somewhat easier to accept. If not, the only politically viable option is to terminate it.

[KrR]

33. They don't care they just hate Obama n'/t

[AllentownJake]

35. A bad policy is a bad policy

and if one thinks that implementing a bad policy will have the same negative political results, it is simply a catch 22 where if you pass a shitty bill you lose, if you don't you lose.

I'd rather lose without the bad policy.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. I wouldn't be FORCED to buy insurance I can't afford.

(Was that a trick question?)