Kos Diary: ""Kill The Bill" Is Their Only Answer"

[berni_mccoy]

This is a great piece on what it truly means to kill the bill.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/29/819833/-Kill-The-Bill-Is-Their-Only-Answer-

"Kill The Bill" Is Their Only Answer
by Norbrook


Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 08:37:10 AM PST

On Sunday I published a diary which asked some questions that the advocates for killing the bill should be answering. I'll summarize it: If this fails, what is your plan for introducing a better plan next year? What makes you think you can get it passed? I've also asked this as a comment in other diaries. My personal take on it was that if this bill dies, the issue is dead for the next several years. I was willing to be proved wrong.

My diary attracted a lot of comments from the people who want the bill killed. My comments along these lines in other diaries also received responses. While I appreciated the attention, I just had a little problem with the responses. No one was answering my questions.

...snip...

By realistic, I mean with the current Congress. You're not going to get a change in 2010. I want to know your "whip count," if you've even done one. I want to know how you're going to get around the cloture rules in the Senate. Stop telling me about doing away with filibusters, because it isn't going to happen. Don't tell me about reconciliation until you show you understand what it is and what it can - and can't - do. Stop talking about "having balls," when your statements show me that you're not acknowledging the potential consequences of your actions, or a willingness to live with them. I don't want to hear any more theories about "secret instructions," rants about corporatists, or discussions of how Rahm Emmanuel is the new Dark Lord of the Sith.

The evidence I've seen from watching the process on the current bill is that this is what we're going to get. It barely squeaked by in both houses, and the make-up of Congress isn't going to change. The bill is going to be tweaked and probably improved somewhat in conference. I've seen no willingness to revisit the issue if it fails, but there are a lot of statements about avoiding controversial subjects next year. Right now all the evidence points to one thing: If this bill fails, you can forget HCR for a while. Years, even. Are you willing to live with that? Are you willing to live with the consequences of not having any HCR legislation?

...snip...

So if you want to persuade me that killing the first HCR bill we've ever been able to get through both houses of Congress is a good idea, you'd damned well better have the answers! Everything I've seen to date tells me you don't have them. Get back to me when you do, maybe I'll be persuaded.

[Cha]

1. Thanks bernie.

[LostInAnomie]

2. Very good

[MadHound]

3. You want answers, fine

Kill the goddamn bill, introduce another one next year with a strong public option, one that taxes the rich, not the so called Cadillac plans (which will kill the middle class), and one that doesn't have language that limits women's right to choose.

Then fuck this whole nonsense of having to have sixty votes for cloture, fuck bipartisanship. Let the goddamn 'Pugs and Blue Dogs filibuster. Insert spine at this point, go out, use the bully pulpit to beat these obstructionists about the head and shoulders, repeatedly. Do some good old fashioned political arm twisting on the obstructionists in the Democratic party (you want your seat next term, you want that plum committee chair you've got, then play ball)

This has been done again and again, it is tried and true. It has worked before and will work again.

That's the plan we need to follow.

Any other questions?

[cali]

4. no questions, just a comment: Everything you wrote is complete and utter fantasy

I wish it weren't so, but it is and it's no use pretending.

[MadHound]

8. Ah yes, here comes cali with her dismissive tone and absolutely no facts to back her ass up

Prove it, prove that what I wrote is utter fantasy.

Hmm, let's see here, filibuster was broken in '53, 57, '64 '68 '78, and others, all successfully.

But it does require that Obama and Dems have a spine and resolve, something that is sadly lacking.

[berni_mccoy]

17. First off, the filibuster rules were different then. Secondly, none of those were HCR bills.

The only other time HCR legislation has been considered, well, we all know what happened there.

[MadHound]

29. Actually the rules weren't that different

And in fact, back in '53 it took a 2/3 vote to break a filibuster, as opposed to today, where it takes only 3/5.

And yes, none of those were HCR bills, but they were matters that were equally controversial, you know, Civil Rights and stuff.

[cali]

28. you want facts, sweetie? I'll give you facts up the wazoo.

Kill the goddamn bill, introduce another one next year with a strong public option, one that taxes the rich, not the so called Cadillac plans (which will kill the middle class), and one that doesn't have language that limits women's right to choose.

Then fuck this whole nonsense of having to have sixty votes for cloture, fuck bipartisanship. Let the goddamn 'Pugs and Blue Dogs filibuster. Insert spine at this point, go out, use the bully pulpit to beat these obstructionists about the head and shoulders, repeatedly. Do some good old fashioned political arm twisting on the obstructionists in the Democratic party (you want your seat next term, you want that plum committee chair you've got, then play ball)

This has been done again and again, it is tried and true. It has worked before and will work again.

That's the plan we need to follow.


Point by fucking point, genius:

1) Next year is an election year.

2) Harry Reid has demonstrated conclusively that he is not willing to bust the filibuster. What are you gonna do, dear? Stick a gun to his head?

And that's all she wrote.

Reality is a real bitch. Yeah, yeah. I know. So am I.

[MadHound]

43. Ooo, pseudo-facts and arguing your limitations.

1. Filibusters have been broken in election years (1964)

2. As far as Reid goes, light a fire under his ass. He's up for re-election, if he wants help, then he has to play. If he wants to remain Majority Leader, he has to play.

There is a time to play political hardball, and HCR is one of those times. Sadly, the Dems seem only to want to take their ball and go home. My God, we didn't put large majorities in Congress and a Dem in the White House just to have them sit there and say "oh we can't do this". What more do you fucking want?

The only thing that these Democrats have shown is how well they are at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

That's reality.

[stopbush]

10. Agreed. Contrary to received opinion, a ton of politcal capital has been spent on HCR this year.

If it fails now, it will be a tar baby for the foreseeable future.

Saying "reintroduce it next year" is just that - saying it. It isn't doing it. It's empty words because nobody - not even Kucinch - will go near HCR if it fails at this point.

Moreover, the people in charge of the whip counts will know that a defeat of this bill means to forget it for decades. Any bill that is reintroduced next year IN ANY FORM will never be put on the docket for consideration.

In fact, if the bill is killed at this point, the exact same legislation in every detail could be reintroduced next year and it wouldn't gain 20% of the votes it got this time around. Politicians know a loser when they see it, and none of them will allow this loser to come up again in their political careers, which means at least the next 20 years.

It's that simple.

[Kansas Wyatt]

77. Bernie Sanders will introduce a HCR bill next year.

You are correct though... This SHIT Bill would not gain any support next year, because it's, well.... SHIT for the American People.

2009: The year the Democratic Government worked for and represented Corporate America over the American People. That is the bottom line.

Just a little reminder... When the Republicans get back in power, and they will after the fucking the Democrats are giving the American People, they will KEEP the MANDATES in place, but they will CUT & GUT all funding that actually does help people in this SHIT Bill.

Saying it will take 20 years for reform is relying on the same failed tactics of allowing conservatives to dictate what reform will look like. Conceding defeat before the debate, allows your opponent to dictate the terms.
It's that simple.

[RoyGBiv]

5. Please describe these times this has worked.

[MadHound]

9. See my post above

Hell, even though Strom Thurmond set a record filibuster, in the end he was broken and the Civil Rights bill went through.

[RoyGBiv]

26. Your post above didn't say anything ...

It was simply a swipe at someone and not relevant to my request.

The only point I will make is that you are the one making the claim that "this" has worked "again and again." It is therefore incumbent upon you to support that claim, not those questioning the assertions validity.

Your point about Senator Thurmond is irrelevant. The composition of Congress and it differing rules at the time did not support killing the bill, which, by the way, was heavily negotiated by both parties prior to reaching the point Thurmond could conduct his theatrics.

[cali]

31. sure it says something: It represents a fair number of people here and it

says that they live in a total and ridiculous fantasy world.

[RoyGBiv]

39. Well, okay, there's that

[MadHound]

32. LOL, not relevant, nice dismissal there

When facts don't agree with your preconceived notions, they're simply not relevant eh.:rofl:

[RoyGBiv]

41. You have presented no facts ...

Can you support your assertion or not?

[MadHound]

44. Umm, yes, I did, can you not read the post I wrote above

Or do you simply not want to deal with the reality of the fact that Dems of previous generations actually fought, as opposed to today's Dems which simply cave.

[RoyGBiv]

49. No ...

I responded to your comment with a request. You sent me to another post, which was the only other post to which you could have been referring at the time, and it contained no facts. It was merely your attempt to get into a pissing match with Cali.

Either address my request or do not. It makes me no difference, but I am not playing your little game of trying to follow your discussions elsewhere or with your smileys and what you think is clever wordplay.

I will make this request once again, and if it goes unanswered, I will understand that either you cannot support your argument or wish not to do so.

Please describe these situations you claim work time and again. To save time, you may want to compare those situations, if indeed they exist, to the current circumstances and explain how those situations can be instructive for the current generation of Congress people and citizens.

[MadHound]

56. I will not repeat this again either

You want specifics, then read posts 3 and 8 that I wrote. If you want further facts regarding those posts, I've given you plenty of information to follow up with your own research. I am not going to try and condense several books worth of information down to what will be a lengthy post just to satisfy your whims. Go out and educate yourself, I did.

Besides, dinner and a pleasant evening calls.

Again, educate your own self, I gave your the leads, the years, etc. Stop being such a lazy butt.

[RoyGBiv]

59. Very well ...

You cannot address the issue, which is as I suspected.

The posts to which you refer do not address my request and expose a weak, silly mind.

[defendandprotect]

40. What hasn't worked is voting for the "lesser of evils" ... either on election day . . .

nor with compromising on legislation --

There is NO health care til '13 . . . but taxes start immediately.

GOP get another chance to knock this out but we don't get a chance for single payer,

Medicare for All, Public Option --???

We don't deserve what every other nation has ---

Do you by any chance recall that the purpose of health care reform was to end the

suffering and pain and immense expense the insurance companies, pharm and health care

"for profit" industry were inflicting upon the public???

[RoyGBiv]

42. What?

Can you please construct a coherent post?

[defendandprotect]

51. You wouldn't be avoiding reality by any chance, would you?

HEALTH CARE REFORM WAS ABOUT GETTING INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF OUR HEALTH CARE

SYSTEM ---

DO YOU RECALL THAT -- ???

[RoyGBiv]

55. I can't hear you ...

Speak louder. Try the SUPERCAPS KEY!

[defendandprotect]

61. That's what I thought the first time around . . . la la la la la

:evilgrin:

[napoleon_in_rags]

15. It's not about obstructionists in the Dem party, that's the problem.

IT takes 60 to break the filibuster, Dems have 59. Seats will probably be lost in 2010. I mean if we had 63 seats with 5 Dems obstructing, sure. Your plan would work. But Lieberman is not a Dem. The other factor is this is a time when the Republican party is having purges to get rid of their own moderates, so no amount of arm twisting or sweetheart deals is going to sway any of them.

If you think this is wrong, please explain WHY. Specifically, identify Republicans who could be swayed by arm-twisting or deals, and explain what those deals would be.

[MadHound]

35. Argue your limitations, and sure enough, their yours

Sorry, but history has proven time and again that what I suggest actually does work. But as I said before, it takes a spine and resolve on the part of Obama and the Democrats, something they're sorely lacking.

You don't think that Republicans wouldn't respond to being beaten over the head as obstructionist, especially in an election year. Again, argue your limitations. . .

[napoleon_in_rags]

53. Here's the data I REALLY need to have to debate this with you:

Right now the support for the bill is down: (random news link about it)
http://www.freep.com/article/20091222/NEWS15/91222024/1319/Most-voters-against-health-care-reform-plans-poll-finds
But notice this:

Voters may oppose the health care plans overall, but they support some items which have been stripped from the Senate bill: Fifty-six percent of respondents support the so-called “public option” government health plan compared to 38% who oppose it. Meanwhile, voters support allowing younger people to buy into Medicare by a 64%-30% margin.

My question is, to what extent is support for the bill down because progressives like you are upset about the public option being removed? Its a MASSIVELY important question. As a supporter of this Bill (I qualify for Washington State Basic Health, a government program that subsidizes private insurance plans including non-profit care cooperatives which I chose. I like it, it works fine and this bill seems very similar.) my take is that they went for it, Faux news turned up the scare machine, and support dropped...So we're lucky we got through what we did. Am I wrong? Was in not losing the center but losing the left made support drop?

Anyway, the point is I'd like to see really good numbers on this. If Dems have lost a lot of support because affirming our limitations as a you say, then you may actually be right, certainly from a political perspective. As far as the substance of the bill though I think its way way better than nothing, provided people can choose consumer governed non-profit providers like we have here in WA.

[defendandprotect]

54. They're so used to surrender and voting for the "lesser of evils" ... they can't hear you...!!!

[defendandprotect]

45. How come your reasoning only leads to compromise and white flags???

Isn't there anything in your thinking that suggests to you that we deserve what

other nations have -- and aren't you asking yourself why we're not getting it???

Why is it ALWAYS fear-based thinking here?

Do you really think that's the approach to getting something better than this ....

well . . . I wouldn't even call it a "lesser of evils" ... this one is evil!

Recall that this was about getting insurance companies out of health care . . . ????

This corrupt legislation cements corporations into our health care system and provides

them with a larger base and wealth to control more of government?

Is that really what you want?




60 votes and Lieberman and Blue Dogs as an alibi for why we don't have a public option

or Medicare for all is just that excuses. Let's let Lieberman go run the Repug party . . .

he seems to have done wonders for them!!!

The all powerful Lieberman and Blue Dogs -- more powerful than 59 Dems and a Dem President!!

And, before we start on any new ventures we better recognize how very weak Obama and Dems

are!!

[napoleon_in_rags]

64. See my post #53 to see where I'm coming from, and give opinion on that.

Again, I think the bill is decent because I am in a similar program in WA...But the question here is the cost of perceived spinelessness. Would YOU say you don't support this bill if a poller called you? Does this represent a big loss on the political front? That's what I want to know.

[defendandprotect]

72. There is no reform unless there is at least a public option . . .

of course I wouldn't support this legislation --

it's a giveaway program to insurance/pharma -- an unprecedented giveaway --!!

How do you fail to notice that?


Meanwhile, tackle some of the nonsense you're hearing about Lieberman ...

is he truly a Superman running the Democratic party or are you being handed more fable?

Lieberman has magical powers to make Public Option and Medicare disappear . . . but our

59 Dems -- all of the Dem Party -- and Obama are weaklings before him?

Is that what you're choosing to believe?

[napoleon_in_rags]

84. Do I have a choice in what to believe?

If so I choose to believe that 5 dems can make single payer appear. I'll give it time, but experience suggests the world is a mix of what we envision, and what is possible. And what is possible is that it takes 60 seats to have a filibuster proof majority, which Dems don't have. So providence has brought us this here current health care bill.

I personally don't care if the bill is a giveaway to Safeway, where "giveaway" means that we are opting to buy the food from Safeway that we will give to starving people. If you jump in front of such a bill with the ideology that Safeway should be run by the government, you are letting ideology get in the way of a life saving program. You are fighting to let people die so it can be just your way. And that makes you a serious prick in my opinion.

[MiniMe]

23. Nothing is going to get done next year, it is an election year

But no matter what, you need to get 60 votes for cloture. You can bully and browbeat people all you want, but you still have to get 60. You aren't going to get a progressive or even a liberal in Nebraska until at least 2012, and then it would be a republican because Nebraska is very conservative.

It is unfortunate, but you have to work with what you have, not with what you want. God, I just sounded like Rumsfeld there.

[MadHound]

36. Bully, browbeat, arm twist, these tactics have worked before, in election years

1964? Ring a bell?

Yes, you do have to work with what you have, but the key word in that phrase is "work". Obama and the Democrats haven't worked, they've caved, time and again on HCR.

[defendandprotect]

73. Obama has obviously a corporate agenda. . . that's been seen since first days after election...

[Pithlet]

48. If this were even remotely a possibility, I'd be on the kill the bill train so fast.

But it's not.

[The Gunslinger]

68. +1

That's what Democrats should do. That's what they're supposed to do.

[frazzled]

6. Indeed, the faction of "no"

We've all been asking these questions of the kill-the-bill crowd.
We all stood with signs, we telephoned and wrote to get a public option. Due to the makeup of the current Congress (which is only going to get worse, not better, in 2010), we're not getting it. But we are getting something that will do a lot of good for the poor and middle class. It's an enormous step ... and a first one.
The alternative is ... the corporate mayhem we have now gets WORSE.

I've said this before: the kill-the-bill crowd is a lot like the evangelical preacher: fire and brimstone on this earth, with the empty promise of reward in some ill-defined afterlife. Not buying, thank you.

[Karmadillo]

7. What are the consequences of not having this particular HCR legislation?

nt

[Nikki Stone1]

11. Norbrook needs answers as to what will happen if the bill goes through and

rates go up faster than inflation, faster than real income, and people are left worse off than they are now. This WILL happen because there is no adequate policing of this system. All Norbrook has is a lot of rhetoric and poutrage, but no real answers.

[defendandprotect]

25. And, third point --- there are taxes immediately -- no health care til '13 . . .!!!

[Spazito]

12. It has been interesting...

to see the same questions being posed as to when and how a "better" bill will get through if the current bill is "killed" on DU and the same crickets or "through reconciliation" answers are given.

If this current, less than what was hoped-for, bill is killed, it will be many years before another attempt is made I have NO doubt. As has been pointed out in the KOS link and on DU, pass the pass the "current POS HCR bill with all the non-reconciliation elements in it...THEN do the PO or medicare buy-in through reconciliation." That makes sense to me.

[EFerrari]

22. Except I've yet to hear or read anyone who expects that to happen

in reconcilliation.

[Spazito]

38. Does that perspective make sense to you though?

To pass the non-reconciliation items currently in the bill and then do the financial-based items ie public option, etc, through reconciliation?

Is it not easier to do it this way than to NOT do it at all as would happen if the current bill is "killed"?

[EFerrari]

66. The public option seems to be DOA this time around. n/t

[Spazito]

67. I think the phrase "this time around" is key...

depending on what that phrase means to you. I find I must ask the question again:

"Is it not easier to do it this way (the non-reconcilable items in the bill, then reconciliation for the financial related items ie the public option) than to NOT do it at all as would happen if the current bill is "killed"?"

Your response doesn't seem to indicate a substantive answer to the question from what I can discern.

[EFerrari]

69. I don't think there will be reconcilliation for the financial related items.

Full disclosure: I'm 54 and will fall in the hole of older people who make enough for this bill to do zip for me when it finally kicks in if my understanding of the bill (which isn't finalized I know) is accurate.

That's not my real objection, though. Anything that starts out further entrenching insurance companies can't come to good, imho. But, whatever. If I'm wrong, I'll party like it's 1974. :)

[Spazito]

70. That still doesn't answer the question I posed...

given I did not ask whether you believed reconciliation would take place but rather whether passing a bill with the non-reconcilable items in it now and using reconciliation for the finance-based items ie public option, etc, after made sense. Stating you believe reconciliation would not happen doesn't address the question of whether it would make sense to do it that way rather than killing the bill and starting from scratch sometime in the future.

[TheWraith]

13. Kicked and recommended. nt

[KakistocracyHater]

14. 'forget health coverage for years'?-why should that be? Real Lefties introduce

a Public Option on EVERY bill that goes in-what then? I don't enjoy being threatened with imaginary things-I hope Sen. Franken hears me, & anyone else who's Left enough to go with 'the people'.

[berni_mccoy]

16. What then? Nothing will get done. That's what.

[defendandprotect]

33. Try to remember that heath care reform was about getting INSURANCE COMPANIES out of our

health care system . . .

By any chance do you remember the harm they've been doing ????

OK ... so now, you're going to support legislation which cements Pharma and insurance companies

into our health care -- and gives them $600 Billion/$800 billion besides?

How does that make sense to you -- or anyone???

[defendandprotect]

34. right . . . enough of the White flags and fear-based reasoning . . . !!!

[EFerrari]

18. This bill was passed by both houses because it was written by the insurance industry.

Good grief. It's not like this is some kind of tremendous achievement. This is what they wanted in the first place. Go ahead and claim victory. Just know who you are claiming it for.

[defendandprotect]

21. And why shouldn't we settle for a Lieberman/Blue Dog win....Obama and Dems are . . . !!!

How stupid are Americans . . . ? Not this stupid!!!

Ah, yes, the amazing magical all powerful Lieberman and Blue Dogs . . .

vs the president -- the powerless president -- and a majority of Dems . . .

Turn up the BS meters, folks -- you're being taken.

[EFerrari]

24. I don't blame Lieberman or the Blue Dogs. That's too easy.

This is the bill Obama negotiated for and this is the one he got.

[defendandprotect]

62. Agree . . . 1000% . . .

[mmonk]

19. Killing the bill might add pressure to actually do one

that is truely reform instead of instituting private for profit health insurance interest power in government.

[defendandprotect]

20. First of all the point was to deliver us FROM insurance companies . ..

NOT imbed them in our lives and government further --

And, secondly, I guess what is wrong isn't with our elected officials . . . it's

with we idiot Americans who just can't seem to make clear that we want Single Payer,

Medicare for All, Public Option?

We're just American idiots who can't get what people in every other nation have?

And we should FEAR not getting this deformed legislation????

Yeah . . . I guess we don't deserve what people in other countries deserve ...

And we're too dumb to get it !!!

Face it -- Obama and Baucus and Reid threw in the towel on this before it even began!!!

Kinda sounds like background music for our elected officials having thrown up the

white flag early . . . because Lieberman was so powerful -- Lieberman and the Blue Dogs!






:rofl: :rofl:

[Edweird]

27. Passing a bill just for the sake of passing a bill is ridiculous. Especially one as flawed as this.

If this is the best they can do, then thanks but no thanks. They are supposed to be working in OUR best interests. They are not. They have chosen what is best for the very entities that made our healthcare system an abomination in the first place. They are supposed to be adults, not our toddler children. We are not required to pretend to be proud of every dumb ass piece of crap they hand us. We, as a citizenry, overwhelmingly (by a 2-1 margin) want SINGLE-FUCKING-PAYER! So, they need to get with the program, give it up, or suffer the consequences come election time.

[defendandprotect]

30. +1000%

[TheKentuckian]

37. How and when is the make up of Congress going to allow this trash to be fixed?

About the same time it will have the make up to pass a decent bill.

All we are doing is blowing a trillion dollars to get a 10 billion dollar CHS and the false satisfaction of giving people insurance they can't use so some guilt is soothed and the poor can be blamed for not using their generously gifted bootstraps.

I'm under no delusion that anything better is going to pass this Congress. If I come down on the side of killing the bill then I also accept that reform will have to wait until the pain spreads far enough to change the dynamic. In this era of reduced Federal income we aren't going to get another chance after wasting a trillion dollars.

At the moment, I'll resist calling for the bill to be killed because of the political damage but every day it seems more and more like the bill will do more harm than good or at best just spread the same level of pain around a bit. This is not good for the people as a whole and kicks the unions square in the nads for all they have done to support the party over the years, which is bullshit and a sell out.

[LostInAnomie]

46. The KTBers don't care about and have no conception of reality.

They somehow think if they scream loud enough or use the magical bully pulpit just right, single payer or the public option will just magically pass.

It's wish thinking that isn't grounded in anything.

[defendandprotect]

57. Well, think about it . . . Lieberman waved a magic wand and public option disappeared . . . and

Medicare for All disappeared . . .

Now, let's see . . . Lieberman is Superman and Obama and the Democratic majority are weaklings?

Plus, fear based thinking tells us that we should surrender before they take this away?

Do you happen to recall that health care reform was about getting insurance companies out of

our health care system?

[LostInAnomie]

65. See, there is the fundamental misunderstanding of reality I was talking about.

No serious politician or policy maker ever set out with the goal of extracting insurance companies from health care. The PO wouldn't have done that, and single payer was never even a possibility. Medicare for all wasn't even seriously considered. They only proposed lowering the age to 55.

KTBers can cry about betrayal and Democratic weaklings all they want, but they ignore the simple fact that the votes were not there to get past a filibuster. Without the votes to get past a filibuster, it doesn't matter how amazing a piece of legislation may be for the country, it will not become law. Using the bully-pulpit would have done nothing. The 40 Republican senators would not have budged EVER, and all the power would have been in the hands of politicians that don't rely on liberal votes to get elected.

You can call the Senate Dems and Obama weaklings all you want, but it wasn't them that empowered Lieberman and Nelson. It was the 40 Repukes.

[defendandprotect]

71. The public wants insurance companies out of our health care . . .

and the problems we are suffering are caused by insurance companies --

that's obvious to the entire nation and our elected officials.

It's obvious to Howard Dean, it's obvious to Bernie Sanders -- it's obvious to all Americans.

The Medicare Option to age 55 was in -- and is now out -- by the allged "magic" of Lieberman.

Obama was for public option in '09 -- Pelosi was for Public Option only two months ago!

You're so busy trying to defend Obama and this administration against criticism that you'll

take anything they give you.

Again -- evidently compared to Superman Lieberman . . . our president is a weakling --

Compared to Superman Lieberman our 59 Senators are nothing but weaklings.

What a joke --

This legislation offers unprecedented corporate/fascism -- while turning $600 Billion/$800 Billion

over to insurance and pharma --!!

[LostInAnomie]

78. I don't think you even know what the Public Option was?

Because if you did, you would know it wouldn't have removed insurance companies from health care. Nothing would have changed for the grand majority of Americans. They would have still been on the same insurance they are on now, only with most of the same protections that are in this bill.

You can call Lieberman "magic" all you want, but at least I can explain how he messed up the process to get us the bill we have now, and how there was almost no way around it.

What you can't do is explain in anything other than wish thinking how we could have gotten the 60 votes for the PO or single payer.

[defendandprotect]

79. Read slowly . . . we need an OPTION to compete with insurance companies . . .

Otherwise any "reform" is DEFORM . . .

Do you also recall the Medicare Option to 55?

That's also gone with Lieberman's magic wand --

Concentrate . . . the only way Lieberman can "mess" up entire Democratic Party and

Obama is if he more powerful than they are . . . !!!

You don't need 60 votes to pass legislation -- you need to let them filibuster and let

the nation see what is going on --

As many others here have explained to you --

[LostInAnomie]

83. You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

So far, you have claimed that the original intent of HCR was to get insurance companies out of health care, it wasn't. Anyone that knows anything about the public option would have known that.

You have claimed that Lieberman made Medicare for all disappear, he didn't. That was never even in the bill. Anyone that has been following the discussions over HCR knows that.

You also don't seem to know anything about the Senate rules. If there is a filibuster in place, you do need 60 votes to break that filibuster. That means the Democrats needed all 60 members of their caucus to vote with them. It may suck, but those are the rules of the Senate. You can dream up imaginary scenarios where passionate speeches and fiery rhetoric can melt the hearts of Republicans and Democratic caucus members that don't rely on liberals to get elected, but that is pure fantasy.

Lieberman is a dick, but it wasn't Obama or the Dems that gave him the power he had. It was the Republicans.

[sendero]

47. That's because your questions are stupid..

... for the questions this dude is asking to have any relevance, one simple fact would have to be true: that all things considered this bill's passage would leave our health care delivery system in a better place.

Would it? I don't think so.

[ShamelessHussy]

50. as good as it gets

hmmm... sounds like the cards are stacked against us, maybe it is time to reshuffle, or get a new deck to me.

:shrug:

[G_j]

52. just maybe because that is the only answer.. nt

[walldude]

58. Well when the bill is finished I'll put in my vote on whether or not to kill it

But as it stands it does more for insurance companies than citizens, and I have not heard what they plan to do in committee or in Reconciliation. Regardless of what this person says reconciliation is where this can be repaired. I have outlined it many times on DU Thom Hartmann has outlined it, we have made a simple, solid case for a Medicare buy-in for all on reconciliation.

I find it funny that no one on the side of pass any bill whatever is in it has come up with a valid argument against the medicare-buy in for all. And before you go jumping my case research it yourself, see if there are any flaws. I won't be reprinting my arguments for it here any more because no one wants to hear a real solution, they just want to piss all over each other, kind of like this guy is doing.

[defendandprotect]

60. The problems with our health care stem from insurance companies and "for profit" health

care corporations and greedy pharma . . .

Oops! They all just got cemented into our health care --

plus we're giving them $600/$800 billion to screw us some more!!

[grahamhgreen]

63. It's real simple - if the senate bill passes, HCR is killed forever. If we kill it, then the Dems

MUST continue to work on it.

The bill will give trillions to big insurance who will take the money, destroy what little reform is in the bill, and then go for increasing our payments to them, while decreasing their responsibility, duh.

[defendandprotect]

80. +1000%

:)

[freddie mertz]

74. My answer is to fight it RIGHT NOW.

Try to get enough congresscritters to keep their WORD and withhold their vote unless the bill is improved.

Play the same tough political game the DLC insurance shills have played.

What we have seen so far from the weak-kneed Washington progressives gives us little to go on, but it's worth a last try.

[defendandprotect]

81. Agree . . . agree . ..

[sendero]

75. "our only answer"?

Yes, that is true. This is a binary situation. Either you pass this piece of shit bill or you kill it. The time and opportunity to make it worth passing has passed.

So, kill the bill. And may Obama learn an important lesson. If you want a trophy for your mantlepiece, make sure the trophy is for an actual accomplishment, not for being the absent captain of a stupid team.

[Armstead]

76. You want Answers?! (to quote Jack Nicholson)

Here's a real simple answer. It's too late for it, because Congress and Obama have already Screwed the Pooch on this, but it's what tghey ought to do, IMO.

If they are unable or unwilling to do what is really necessary -- a combination of a strong public insurance program and strict regulation of privatye insurance -- then AT LEAST strip out the harmful structural crap from this bill like mandates for private insurance, and just pass a bill that fixes some problems now.

Leave the problematic structural changes alone until Democrats get the will and intelligence to figure out how to get it right.

In the meantime, leave in the things that might do some good now, like subsidies and the few regulations that do exist in "the bill" and pass them. Take a victory lap and go back to the drawing board for the harder parts.

[defendandprotect]

82. Right . .. or, simply ask one of the countries who do cover their citizens for the blueprint to

universal health care coverage . . .

We seem to think we're reinventing the wheel!!!