Should Obama scrap the Health Care Reform bill?

[olegramps]

There appears to be such wide spread opposition to the bill would it be wise for President Obama to just withdraw his support? Wouldn't he be justified to say the bill has become such a tool of special interest groups that it has totally failed to effect the health care reform that he had envisioned would benefit the working class?

[Jennicut]

1. No, the recent Gallup poll on health care showed that it is more spllit then anything else.

There is not widespread opposition. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx
It is 49% to 46% in this poll and for Gallup's polling, it has gone slightly up.

[Little Star]

2. Yes. Should have pushed Medicare for all to begin with!

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. 2+

[karynnj]

17. Can you list the 60 US Senators who will vote for that?

I think it would be a great idea. I just don't think it could be passed.

[Little Star]

23. If GWB could push through all the shit he did, Obama could

have pushed through medicare for all. There are ways, he was to interested in what the Insurance Industry wanted. Some times you have to just stand strong for what is right. If he had at least tried he would have earned much more respect. Wait until it goes through and people start reaping what he has sown....... The back lash will be bad.

[muffin1]

27. I'm with you, Little Star.

He should have started with single-payer, instead of starting at what should have been the compromise position (public option). Then he should have pushed like hell for that.
He has been wishy-washy since the whole thing started.

I'm getting really fed up with this bi-partisan crap. Maybe the poster who replied to you earlier will tell us what we got for sucking up to Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman?

I was a HUGE Obama fan, but I'm getting more and more disheartened.

[Little Star]

28. Take a look at Massachusetts. Coakley was a shoe in until

they made her flip and say she was for this bill. Coakley could have been a chia-pet and won here in MA before she said she supported this bill. That is the first shot across the bow, about just how bad, the back lash is going to be. If this can happen in bluer than blue MA just imagine the purple states.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. List the votes then if it's so easy. (nt)

[Little Star]

31. You do not need 60 votes!!!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Then list the votes that would invoke the nuclear option.

Keeping in mind, of course, the heavy Democratic opposition to it when Republicans brought it up. Reconciliation alone would not get us where you suggest.

[SkyDaddy7]

37. A voice of reason!!!

Thank-you! It seems many think Obama has yet to use the "Jedi Mind Trick" to get those opposed to the Public Option to vote for it...And they think Obama could have passed Medicare for all??????????

[Little Star]

40. Yes we do.

[Little Star]

39. I think and correct me if I'm wrong

reconciliation takes only 51 votes and it cannot be filibustered. We also had the option to just expanded medicare without this bill. My main point was that if GWB could ram through all his shit, if his administration could figure out how, so could have Obama. There were other options is my point. Obama didn't try anything else, why?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. But it is subject to amendment, all of which must be voted on.

Republicans are said to have in the neighborhood of 600 amendments, and they can demand each one read aloud as well. If each takes amendment takes 30 minutes to clear (which is unbelievably efficient), you'd have nearly 13 non-stop, 24 hour days of just voting on amendments. Further, it would be subject to the discretion of the parliamentarian, who could easily turn the bill into swiss cheese, leaving you to try to pass the most important parts via normal means, which would be subject to filibuster.

The reconciliation route was not well thought out when advanced as an option. That's why Rockefeller said he must've been drunk when he said it was a consideration.

On edit: And it's not clear that you would get 50 votes under reconciliation. Otherwise sympathetic process-hawks, such as Byrd and Feingold, who would otherwise vote in our favor, would oppose on the grounds that it's the wrong way to do things. They both have a record of doing this. You'd lose all the moderates.

[leftynyc]

53. But you do need 50

I don't think they're there.

[O is 44]

89. GWB never pushed through

anything not favorable to corporations, so much easier when you are not upsetting the status quo. He also had 1 or 2 willing Democrats to help him, he republicans will not return the favor for Obama.

[Better Believe It]

24. You need 51 votes, not 60, to pass legislation.

[karynnj]

36. There are cloture votes - and they take 60 votes

[Better Believe It]

77. A cloture vote to stop a non-existent filibuster?

[leftynyc]

54. Actually - with Biden as VP

they only need 50.

[Ganja Ninja]

41. That is the Democrats problem in a nutshell

They don't support what the people expect them to support. Of course not all of them are guilty of this but there's enough and people hold it against the party not just the individual politician.

[karynnj]

56. The problem is that all it takes is ONE

Lieberman alone is a problem

[paulk]

58. I guess we'll never find out

since it was never on the table

and that's why so many people are upset with Obama's leadership, or perhaps lack thereof, on this issue.

You can't achieve something if you never even try for it.

si se puede, my ass.

[Marr]

82. I don't understand this line AT ALL.

It assumes that the politicians are like inanimate objects, simply for/against a set of issues.

The president has the ability to put enormous pressure on Congress via his bully pulpit-- especially a new president like Obama, who was very popular when he took office. Had he *wanted* to, he could've steered the debate anywhere he liked, framed the debate, and really left a number of politicians with nowhere to go but "Aye". He didn't. He made a point of not doing so, in fact.

[Clio the Leo]

4. In what state are you registered as a Republican?

;)

... and if you're NOT a Republican, why are you championing their main talking point?

[nevergiveup]

5. Why not give a victory to the tea-baggers.

They have been working really hard. :sarcasm:

[olegramps]

9. Many believe that the Tea Baggers have won by destroying the bill...

The Republicans are determined to make HCR Obama's Waterloo. They have stated this and have done everything in their power to defeat him.

[Little Star]

34. I believe the worshipers will be responsible for any tea party

victories. They should have held Obama, this administration and both houses' feet to the fire the second they didn't wage, a drag down bloody fight, for single payer. Those worshipers have done a dis-service to Obama and all Dems!

[Double T]

6. NO. BO should collaborate with the members of the do noting congress (dnc) to include........

the deficiencies in the health care 'reform' bill and get the damn thing passed.

[RoyGBiv]

7. No ...

Next question.

Meanwhile, I have one for you. How have you managed to figure the bill a failure when a) the final form isn't even written yet, b) it hasn't been enacted yet?

[zipplewrath]

11. What changes do you expect?

What changes to either bill are you anticipating that will prevent it from being a failure?

[RoyGBiv]

12. That is not an answer to my question

[zipplewrath]

14. Basically, yes it is.

The bills in their current form don't provide opporunities for "small" changes which could improve them in functionally useful ways. Unless you know of some catastrophic changes being discussed, I don't have to know that every "i" has been dotted to know it's going to be a huge mistake.

[RoyGBiv]

16. Precisely, no it's not ...

I asked a question. The "answer" was another question about changes to the bill, which presumes many things that have nothing to do with my question.

I asked a question that neither you nor the OP seem capable of answering without deflecting.

[zipplewrath]

19. The answer is in the question

The answer to your question about how a bill can be judged before it is finalized is that there are no changes that can be envisioned (or haven't already been rejected) that could improve this bill enough. THAT' the answer. I merely gave you the opportunity to describe one that might actually do that. One answer you can't seem to provide.

[RoyGBiv]

26. Nice try ...

But I'm tired of playing with you.

Get back to me when you can address the question I asked, not the one you want me to ask.

[zipplewrath]

35. All cut and paste

How have you managed to figure the bill a failure when a) the final form isn't even written yet, b) it hasn't been enacted yet?

“…there are no changes that can be envisioned (or haven't already been rejected) that could improve this bill enough.”

You can read right? (bajeesus, ya have to spoon feed some folks).

[RoyGBiv]

38. You really don't get it, do you?

Tragic.

[zipplewrath]

43. Apparently you don't

A simple answer to a sophmoric questiona and you still don't understand. I'm not sure how much more I can spoon feed you. You can lead a horse to water...

[depakid]

8. If he had the credibility and fortitude to get the relevant provisions through reconciliation

and make the extremely popular insurance regulations a campaign issue- daring anyone to vote "no" -and tarring anyone who did as a supporter of health insurance abuses, he and the Dems might actually turn this around.

Unfortunately, it appears that the administration lacks both- and that doesn't bode well for what coming down the pipeline.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Um...

Fuck no. Don't be dense.

[Spazito]

13. Yes, the status quo is so much better, NOT

There certainly are those who want to "kill the bill" and their motives are certainly suspect to me. Oh, and there is yet to be A bill yet, there are two bills being reconciled at this time so how can one "oppose" a bill that has yet to exist unless they don't want ANY reform at all?

[derby378]

18. By the time there is A bill, it might be too late

We want transparency, a public option, and real controls on Big Insurance - things that Obama promised the American people on the campaign trail.

[Spazito]

21. So the current status quo is better than any changes?

Is it really an all or nothing choice? Frankly, that makes NO sense to me especially given the history of the fight for health care reform in the U.S. Do you really think defeating this bill will result in anything other than NO reform for years to come? Do you really think it is simply a matter of going right back to the drawing board? If so, you haven't looked at your own history closely enough, imo.

[derby378]

22. This year IS an election year...

...and if the bill were to be defeated, Democrats in Congress would find themselves under more pressure to deliver by Election Day. Schedules would be cleared. New bills would be written in record time. The 60-vote rule in the Senate would be deep-sixed. Health insurance companies would be forced to spend more money on anti-reform protests while secretly trying to rewrite the new legislation.

Sooner or later, if you pressure Big Insurance long enough, it'll cave in, and we'll get the health reform we truly deserve.

[Spazito]

25. Ummm, no, the history of health care reform in the U.S. is clear and...

consistent. If a health care reform bill is defeated, it does NOT get revisited for years and you will know that. Why do you think it would be different this time? There was an election shortly after the Clinton attempt at reform failed and there was NO attempt to go "back to the drawing board" at all. The same will happen here if this reform bill is defeated so, I ask again, is the current status quo better than any reform and are you happy to live with that for the years it will take before it is revisited?

[derby378]

62. If a reform package causes more harm to the American public than the status quo...

...I cannot support a reform that takes us from bad to worse. Here's hoping the House stands its ground against the Senate in the final bill.

The last time reform failed, the plan called for individual mandates, and I don't think the words "public option" ever came up in the Clinton plan.

[Spazito]

66. You miss the point I am trying to make...

If those who advocate "killing the bill" succeed, there will be NO attempt at reforming health care for many years. That is the consistent history when attempts to reform have failed previously. Why do you think it will be different this time? It will be the same people sitting in Congress who seemed to have failed you in this attempt to reform yet you think they are going to go right back and do it again? Really???

I have a hard time believing you truly believe the horrific state health care is currently in in the U.S. is preferable to the current attempts to reform it, as imperfect as it may be and if you actually do believe the status quo is better, well, that is downright scary, imo.

[zipplewrath]

45. Worse

THESE changes are "worse" than the status quo. "Any" changes, no. But these aren't just "any" changes. They are gifts to the insurance and big pharma that will be codified for a decade or more. It CONTINUES the BUSH policy of no negotiation on Part D for another 10 years!

[Spazito]

48. Worse? Really?

and you know that how? There is, at this time, NO bill before the House and the Senate, the bills passed by the House and the Senate offer different changes and we don't know what will make it into the final bill yet so, unless you have an awesome crystal ball, you are selling something that hasn't even been 'invented' yet.

[zipplewrath]

50. No foreseeable changes

I can see no foreseeable changes that will fix this. Can you? The closest is a return of the Public option, and Rahm and Obama started making it clear in July they weren't particularly committed to that. I don't see what else you're hoping for?

[Spazito]

51. Ahhh, so you are a "kill the bill" advocate, status quo supporter based on...

pure speculation, wow. I don't see what YOU are hoping for if the forthcoming bill, of which we do NOT as yet know what it will contain, is killed.

You like that millions of Americans will continue to be without healthcare, millions more will go bankrupt because of the outrageous price of care charged by the insurance companies, you like the fact that many, many INSURED Americans will be refused coverage due to a pre-existing condition? All of of what I pointed out in this paragraph is an ABSOLUTE certainty if health/insurance reform is killed while it is NOT the case if reform is passed, "imperfect" as it may be.

[zipplewrath]

59. Hardly pure

There is little doubt about the general impact of this bill, it's mostly a matter of degree. Your assumptions/assertions about how many it will help on the other hand are based upon an assumption that isn't clearly demonstrable. People have insurance now and can't afford to "use" it. It isn't clear at all that forcing people with pre-existing conditions to purchase insurance (at 300% the going rate) will necessarily mean they'll be afford to actually get treated.

[Spazito]

60. It "isn't clear" precisely because there is NO bill at the present time...

to advocate for the killing of the bill, when it does come forward, will ENSURE the current atrocious conditions continue which is why I am highly suspicious of those who want to "kill the bill" and retain the status quo which DOES serve the insurance and pharmaceutical companies very well at present.

[zipplewrath]

65. So there can be nothing worse?

Your implied assumption is that the bill can't be worse than the status quo. I'm dubious you can demonstrate that, either politically or functionally.

[Spazito]

67. Neither you NOR I can demostrate anything other then the current system IS atrocious...

given there is NO bill with which to compare, functionally or otherwise.

Do you like the current status of health care in the U.S.?

[zipplewrath]

69. As compared to what

There are 2 bills and right now I'll take what we have vs. either of those. What changes are even possible to make to either of them to make them better than what we have now?

[Spazito]

70. Interesting....

given one bill removes the ability of insurance companies to refuse coverage based on "pre-existing conditions" and one bill has the "public option" and both bills contain other cost control clauses, you believe the status quo is better than anything that is in either of the bills now being reconciled.

Hmmmm, well, I guess there are "some" who will benefit from a healthcare/insurance bill being "killed" but it sure isn't the American public.

I am just very comforted to know your position on this is held by a very small minority no matter how loud that minority might yell in an attempt to appear to be larger.

[zipplewrath]

75. Careful on the pre-existing condition

One bill allows them to charge premiums 300% higher for pre-existing conditions. And there is nothing in the bill to assure that anyone who gets one of those policies will actually be able to afford to use it. But you will be forced to get one. The one and only feature of either bill that has any chance of providing real relief is the public option which virtually everyone on both sides of the isle say is either dead, or will kill the bill. So keep hanging on to that as a reason to justify your support.

Very few if any will benefit from this. Many will be harmed. Especially as there is no assurance one will be able to afford their perscriptions, but big pharma is assured of their profits.

[Spazito]

76. So NO coverage due to pre-existing conditions is better than....

not allowing it and as to what will be allowed to be charged, again, you do not know what is in the bill regarding ensuring insurance is affordable, you have no idea at all because THE bill has yet to be written. I see a lot of talking points being tossed about without any evidence beyond opinion and speculation as to why the currently non-existent bill is worse than the status-quo and that each of the bills currently being reconciled have NOTHING good to offer as has been your opinion.

Maybe WHEN there actually IS a bill we can return to the debate going through it clause by clause but, at this point, we both ONLY know what exists currently and can ONLY speculate as to what might or might not be in THE bill that will come forth soon.

[zipplewrath]

87. We also know what's been rejected/changed

Much of what you are hoping for has already been floated and rejected.

[olegramps]

84. It appears to me that you are in contradiction:

A main point that you are determined to hold on to is that their no final bill and that significant changes are still possible. Then you argue that the bill has many favorable aspects, but this contradicts exactly your first argument. I believe that it is the general consensus that the two bills have potential problems that would be more destructive than any of the advantages. I realize that there are some very significant improvements in the proposed bills, but the argument seems to be that without a strong public option and mandates insurance coverage, without control of costs are not being properly addressed at this time.

Secondly, I don't accept your assumption that if this bill is strangled in the cradle that health care reform is automatically off the table for years to come. In fact, I find that argument to have little credibility due to the extensive attention that this issue has generated. I would be more inclined to think that more progressive legislation would be introduced.

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. Actually the status quo IS better than corporate mandates.

You don't reward the bastards who caused the problem by giving them a massive cash reward. It was true with Gold Mansacks and AIG(Appalling Intentional Greed) and it's true with the insurance criminals.

[Spazito]

61. Riiiight, and killing the bill isn't rewarding the bastards.....

the status quo IS rewarding the "bastards" and killing the bill will be the biggest present you and those who think like you could give them AND the repubs and you well know that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. "Those who think like me"?? You mean DEMOCRATS?

No, the ones giving the gift to the insurance criminals are the idiots and fools who either don't know what a Democrat is, or don't know what a MAJORITY is.

And either way, they turn my stomach.

Read the fucking Constitution. There is nothing in there about 60 votes, and absolutely nothing in there about mandatory payments to a private corporation.

[Spazito]

64. No, those who have consistently be against this Democratic administration...

and will use ANY issue to rail against it, no matter how big or small. Those are the ones who think like you. Are they Democrats? Hmmmm, hard to tell, really hard to tell sometimes.

[WI_DEM]

15. Politically it may have been wiser for Obama to have been more focused on jobs but HCR is a high

priority, but they need to pass it fast so they can concentrate on the economy because (as usual) that is what people vote on in elections most of all especially when the economy is bad.

[zipplewrath]

20. You mean HIR

HCR should have been a high priority. But now the only priority is getting something passed (anything really) so they can move on. In many ways they were declaring defeat before they ever started.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Are you a liberal or a progressive?

If so, then explain how you could leave 30 million Americans without health care.

[timeforpeace]

33. Absolutely not, this is his major issue.

[Aramchek]

42. nope. He's going to sign it into law. Enjoy, Old Man!

[Little Star]

46. And there will be a back lash once people start paying

the price if not before. Mark my words. I think the back lash has already started here in MA and will very possibly cost Martha Coakley this special election. Wake-up, please.

[Fire1]

71. Fine with me. Cut off your nose to spite your face! Go ahead. n/t

[Marr]

83. That's why they want it kick in after the next Presidential election, of course.

Conservative Democrats are like Conservative Republicans in many ways, particularly in their assumption that the public is comprised of nothing but stupid sheep who exist only to be fleeced. I think they actually believe no one will care until it's too late.

[uponit7771]

47. No, it's barely adequate but it's there and can be improved upon

[dflprincess]

49. What health care reform bill?

Even Obama is talking about insurance "reform" - though how serving us up to the insurance companies equals reform is beyond me.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

52. Why should he scrap a bill that he said is 95% what he wanted?

He did say that.

It's his and the Democrats creation. The Republicans and Lieberman and Snowe functioned as stand-ins to pretend that they had to water down the bill to it's barest minimum in order to get support they didn't get anyway. They will have to face the public and say "this is the best we could do, even though we have the Congress, the Senate and the White House."

[Little Star]

55. Amen.

[Vinca]

68. Curious how the plan was much more popular with the public option.

But heaven forbid they should do what the citizens want.

[depakid]

78. Impressive, isn't it?

Same deal with the funding mechanisms.

And yet they wonder why their candidates find themselves in trouble.

[freddie mertz]

72. I am going to reluctantly say yes.

I know it is a harsh position to take.

But in its present form, I think the bill will end up costing so much politically that its better features will probably never come into effect.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

73. He should keep his promise ---

about refusing to sign a bill that doesn't contact a public option.

That would be a small start in winning my vote for 2012.

[David Zephyr]

74. +1

.

[Honeycombe8]

79. He should work to alter it. But he won't. He'll sign it. Dems will lose Congress.

And so it goes, as the pendulum swings.

[dkf]

80. I wish he would scrap it but I think this is the bill he wants

Which is very disillusioning.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[olegramps]

85. I want to thank everyone who responded.

I posed a question and you have provided input. I don't pretent to have all the answers and rely heavily on DU for a balance treatment of issues.

I was not taking a position but asking if the shortcoming that have been emphasized by those who are critical of the proposed bills, but not yet finalized, make the situation worse of better. Take just one aspect for example. One of the major issues was denial of insurance for preexisting conditions. There are now proposals that could make insurance in these cases so costly that it would have the effect of maintaining the status quo of denying people coverage if you were unable to afford it or perhaps subsidized by government payments for those who can't afford it. Seems like another win-win for the greedy insurance companies. Well, thanks again.

[AJD48]

86. No, Congress should scrap it for him

If progressive members of Congress kill the bill that will teach him a lesson for the future:
not to dump on his base and spend months kissing the backsides of his enemies.

[branders seine]

88. yes.

better to start over and at least attempt to do what he promised.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

90. Sure, why not?