GALLUP: 55% say suspend work on current health care bill, consider alternatives instead.

[jefferson_dem]

In U.S., Majority Favors Suspending Work on Healthcare Bill
Seven in 10 say Massachusetts election result reflects frustrations shared by Americans
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the wake of Republican Scott Brown's victory in Tuesday's U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, the majority of Americans (55%) favor Congress' putting the brakes on its current healthcare reform efforts and considering alternatives that can obtain more Republican support. Four in 10 Americans (39%) would rather have House and Senate Democrats continue to try to pass the bill currently being negotiated in conference committee.



The USA Today/Gallup poll was conducted Jan. 20 to gauge initial reaction from Americans to Brown's victory in the special election to fill the remainder of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's term. Massachusetts voters elected a Republican to the Senate for the first time since 1972. Americans widely agree that the election result has national political implications -- 72% say it reflects many Americans' frustrations, which the president and members of Congress should pay attention to, while 18% believe it is a reflection of political conditions in Massachusetts.

Brown campaigned against the healthcare reform efforts and promised if elected to be the crucial 41st Senate vote against it, which would allow Republicans to successfully block its passage.

According to the poll, most self-identified Democrats (67%) want Congress to continue working toward passage of the bill. However, an even larger majority of Republicans (87%) call for suspension of Congress' current work on the bill. The majority of political independents, whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/125327/Majority-Favors-Suspending-Work-Healthcare-Bill.aspx?version=print

[quantass]

1. I'd only suspend it simply because the Bill plainly SUCKS...

not because i want to look for republican support (that is a complete waste of time). The bill is a mess and if anything its passage would make things worse.
I am more inclined to reboot and consider a Single Payer option.

Healthcare reform is desperately needed or America will continue to go broke. The hope is that the Liberals in Congress will try to grow more of a spine and convince others to see the necessity of SP

It is clear the republicans (once again) have set the tone and convinced the people that reform is not the way to go (at least without Republican backing). How very sad...And proof once again how stupid the democratic party is and how determined republicans are.

China/India will overtake America as the biggest superpower in about 15 years and it will very likely be due to democrats inability to get ANYTHING done allowing the republicans to continue to strip America for what its worth and vacate to their own private islands.

[jefferson_dem]

2. At this point, it's probably best to toss this one in the can...

Pass particular pieces of health care reform - those that most people support.

Call it a legislative win and move on to jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Teaser]

4. there is nothing that will pass except this bill

the Senate won't do reconciliation for new legislation and the Republicans will filibuster any other legislation passed through normal processes.

[jefferson_dem]

6. Not reconciliation. See this from the NYT.

A New Search for Consensus on Health Care Bill
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — Even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi affirmed her commitment to pass far-reaching health care legislation this year, members of Congress and health policy experts began Thursday to deal with the reality that a smaller bill would have a better chance.

Passage of a comprehensive bill looked impossible after the Democrats’ loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts. As an alternative, lawmakers in both parties said, some pieces of the bills already passed by the House and the Senate could be pulled out and packaged together in a measure that would command broad support.

The consensus measure would be less ambitious than the bills approved last year. It would extend insurance coverage to perhaps 12 million to 15 million people — and provide political cover to Democrats, who said they could not simply drop the issue after spending so much time and effort on it.

The pared-back approach would cover fewer than half of those who, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would gain coverage under the House and Senate bills. But it would not put the government on the hook for what critics say is a new entitlement, a change that would appeal to some Republicans.

<SNIP>

Lawmakers, Congressional aides and health policy experts said the package might plausibly include these elements:

¶Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions.

¶Insurers would have to offer policyholders an opportunity to continue coverage for children through age 25 or 26.

¶The federal government would offer financial incentives to states to expand Medicaid to cover childless adults and parents.

¶The federal government would offer grants to states to establish regulated markets known as insurance exchanges, where consumers and small businesses could buy coverage.

¶The federal government would offer tax credits to small businesses to help them defray the cost of providing health benefits to workers.

¶If a health plan provided care through a network of doctors and hospitals, it could not charge patients more for going outside the network in an emergency. Co-payments for emergency care would have to be the same, regardless of whether a hospital was in the insurer’s network of preferred providers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/health/policy/22health.html

[Teaser]

8. How will it get past a republican filibuster?

.

[jefferson_dem]

11. These measures *should* receive broader support, from a small handfull of Repugs even.

Collins, Snowe, and others likely.

Hell, some Repug opinion leaders (Newt) are even saying they should all get on board and claim it as their win. "This is what we wanted the whole time! Not the "government takeover" ... blah blah blah..."

[Teaser]

15. What's their motivation to help?

If the Democrats fail to take everything, Repugs have an outside shot at getting the Senate back. Then Olympia Snowe gets a chairmanship.

Say the R's only take back the House, Snowe's standing will still increase, because of the increase in power for the overall Republican caucus in both houses.

What can we give her that will compare to more power?

[DCBob]

3. yep, looks like thats where we are heading..

A smaller less controversial bill or bills that focus on the obvious, easier to understand reforms.

[flpoljunkie]

5. If Dems fail to pass healthcare reform, the Republicans win--now--and in November.

Do you think this would stop the Republicans from passing their president's agenda?

[Imajika]

7. Yup, if the public was this clearly against it..

Remember Bush's second term centerpiece agenda item?

Perhaps not, because it died and they pulled the plug on it because the public clearly opposed the plan.

Social Security reform - aka privatizing Social Security. That has been at the top of the GOP agenda forever, and it has died a horrible death each time it has been tried.

When the polls are this much against you, there just isn't much one can do.

And yeah, yeah, I know, public option polls very well - but that isn't even on the table anymore due to our own side refusing to consider it. Additionally, even if in the future we could get an HCR bill that did have a public option in it, the popularity of that could well collapse if the GOP/Right wing media can even just shift the shorthand name of it to the "government option". Same thing polls very badly with just that change from "public" to "government".

This is just a very difficult thing to do. It's kinda like the Russian winter in the way it chews up Dem administrations trying for it.

[elocs]

9. I know, I posted about this early Thursday evening:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7536576

[old mark]

10. Thing is, the GOP does not really want new legislation - they just want

the democratic bills to fail.

It's all about the perception, media coverage and elections. Nothing else matters to the GOP.


More bipartisanship?

mark

[Orsino]

12. With a Congress now slightly more Republican?

WTF are people expecting? The "reform" we got is the reform we were capable of getting.

[PVnRT]

13. At this point, passing the Senate bill is the best option

It's a win, and one is needed badly right now. You can also put Republicans on the spot by immediately submitting legislation to eliminate the Cadillac tax for union plans, then bust on the GOP for opposing tax cuts for working Americans.

[karynnj]

16. Your idea on the Cadillac tax exclusion is really wrong

I think it would be better to eliminate the provision in the agreement, keeping the other improvements.

The fact is that exemption was a union power play. It fails to pass a red face test to all but people who are willing to accept everything unions say at complete face value. The fact is that contracts are not negotiated 9 years out. In addition, if the tax begins before the end of the contract, the contract actually protects the workers. The company agreed to a benefits package and a wage structure - that stands even if they incur an additional cost.

Not to mention, at least one union has decided that even this is not good enough. The President's logic is completely indefensible as he assumes there will be 15% to 20% increases in premiums every year for the indefinite future. Do the math - this plain and simple can not happen. Companies can not afford increases of that size, with or without the tax. The US government could not afford policies that cost that much. In 8 years, it would make healthcare about half the GDP even with assuming higher growth in that than anyone thinks feasible.

Now, you say that it would be a winning argument to put that agreement up as a standalone vote - I think it would be a nightmare for Democrats. This will not be seen as a tax cut for "working" Americans, but a payoff to special interests getting healthcare plans better than all but 3% of the people. Why did I put "working" in quotes - because "working" and union are not synonymous.

"In 2009, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary
workers who were members of a union--was 12.3 percent"
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Are you saying that only 12.3% of people earning wages or salaries work? Look at that %, this benefits some small % of that 12.3%. Do you really think more than 50% will agree that this is fair. Maybe on DU, maybe among union members, but elsewhere no - it reeks.

(I did belong to a union in one job that I had in summers while a college student. I respect that unions were essential to providing a balance of power with companies. I do not think that exclusion can be justified. )

[ProSense]

14. The forces are out in full. 87% Republicans?

No thanks.

[yodermon]

17. extend medicare to all via reconciliation

one line of code

[CTyankee]

18. so we can get that with a simple majority?

If so, why do you think that is not being discussed? And why didn't they think of this before?

[CreekDog]

19. Insane

Insane.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. I guess what 67% of Democrats want isn't much of an issue