Please stop suggesting/claiming that the senate bill can be substantially improved in conference.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The current senate bill is, for all practical purposes, the final bill. Some detail stuff will be cleaned up in conference but any substantial policy improvement simply kills the bill.

Whatever comes out of conference faces another 60 vote barrier when it reaches the senate.

So the Nelson abortion language can't be removed unless one believes Nelson would allow that. Lieberman would have to allow the reintroduction of a medicare buy-in. About five senators would have to reverse themselves on a public option. And so on.

Whatever the policy measure in question, if it cannot get 60 votes in the senate it will not be in the final conference bill.

Any suggestion that one should support the senate bill because it isn't the last word and can be somehow improved in conference is not merely wrong, it is getting to the point of being disingenuous.

A lot of interesting questions arise about how the House will feel about seeing their bill discarded and something essentially the same as the senate bill tossed in their laps. Nancy Pelosi will have her hands full, but the calculation being made is that there will not be an actual progressive revolt in the House. (I agree with that analysis. There won't be such a revolt.)

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[GreenArrow]

2. And even if it could,

we're dealing with the same players. Same result.

This POS needs to be deep-sixed with impunity.

[Laelth]

3. Agreed. It can get worse, but not better, in conference.

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

[still_one]

4. Your absolutely right, but after it is law it can be amended /nt

[atreides1]

7. And who is going to do that

Do you really believe that those pushing this bill down the throats of the American people are going to amend it?

Not sure what you're smoking but you need to share with the rest of us!

[still_one]

12. Yeah I do. You don't that's fine, in the course of time we will see who is right

[FrenchieCat]

13. Yes...the less than 60 senators that would like to improve the bill, would.

Doesn't have to do with smoking anything....

[still_one]

28. It is easier to amend a bill then create one, but so many people are appear so defeatist

right now it is ridiculous. You work with what you have

[BP2]

11. If Big Insurance and Pharma have stopped our plans now,

Please tell me how this will be different in the near future?

The players will be the same.

Those lobbyists will be even more entrenched with the Pukes and people like LIEberman that they own.

It's now or never to make those changes or we will be stuck with the essentials in this bill.

[still_one]

15. Will they? I will write and do what I can to push my representatives to amend it. You don't have to

You can do other things that you think are right or do nothing thats fine

If the HCR act becomes law, then I will fight to have it changed period.

I don't think there is a problem with that is there?

[donco6]

41. And they'll have even MORE money and a new Congress in 2010.

Amendments? Not in this lifetime.

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. Just like the tax code

lol

[donco6]

40. THAT's what you're hanging your hat on?

"Yeah, it stinks now, but give it a few days and it will smell better"?

LOL!

[kenny blankenship]

5. Denial is all the consolation some people have at this point, K&P-

don't take that away from them, too!

[FrenchieCat]

6. The bill will be slightly improved......via conference, I think.

but it will be after the bill is signed that it will be open to betterment, and as a bill, it can go through the reconciliation budgetary process to increase subsities, and other items within it......and at that time, it will only need 51 votes.

But first you need a bill.

[Fire1]

9. Ditto! n/t

[HughMoran]

19. I'd like to see the preexisting condition for adults thing made immediate

people can't wait for that clause and will be critical of the entire bill if they find that they still can't get coverage after the bill is passed. I apologize if this is not accurate information, but it was reported on CNN and discussed here today.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. That's my biggest political worry as well.

YEARS of stories about people being denied coverage with a "Didn't they say they fixed this?" theme.

All the genuinely heart-wrenching stories we have been seeing about people with dire conditions are made kind of a mean joke if the bill is not going to offer immediate relief to those people.

[HughMoran]

24. I see this as a possible "victory" that can be reported from conference

I see no reason that Dems would object to fixing this. If it's related to budgeting, I wonder if it could also be fixed in reconciliation?

[FrenchieCat]

21. That may be done in conference.

I can certainly see that happening.
I don't think conservative Dems want to fight that one.

[HughMoran]

25. I agree - who would object to fixng this?

As I said above - if it's related to funding, could it not also be addressed in reconciliation.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Yep. if there is a dollar figure associated, as long as it is an existing bill,

yes.

that's with 51 votes.

[sandnsea]

8. Agreed. There's only time for mass mobilization

The only ones who can get the public option and keep good subsidies and Medicaid expansion is US.

[IndianaGreen]

10. I believe the House reserves the right of what font to use on the final version of the bill

but the Senate gets to pick font size.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. That's a break-though... I had thought Blanche Lincoln was already promised Goudy

Some serious arm-twisting must have been involved.

[pleah]

14. We are fucked. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

16. Speak for yourself.

Cause I'll be quite alright.

Better than I would be otherwise,
if the Republicans and their friends at DU
would get their way.

[pleah]

26. Well, I am so glad for you. Some of us will be in worse shape.

To add: Way to throw your female peers under the bus and cheer about it. Sad.

[Ex Lurker]

34. same here

this bill is likely to cost me my job.

[depakid]

18. Reconciliation was the only way to get halfway responsible legislation

Look for major losses in 2010- and if the pattern continues (and the Republicans nominate an ostensible moderate in 2012) look for Obama to be a one term president.

And no one can say that it won't be well deserved.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Yeah...and Obama wasn't gonna win Indiana either,

according to your prediction. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

27. He won't win Indiana in 2012, that's fer sure!

It took a tremendous GOTV effort to turn Indiana blue, particularly by a lot of people that had been turned off from the political process before. The shenanigans they have witnessed from our elected representatives has been a major turnoff.

[depakid]

33. And without the financial meltdown and McCain's profound incompetency, he wouldn't have

fear of losing everything one has is quite the motivator- and in this regard, you may recall the story of the campaign worker who, while knocking on a door heard the husband shout down to the wife: tell 'em we're voting for the n_______.

Do you actually think that would have happened had the economy kept limping along and ostensibly stayed out of crisis?

I don't.

[Teaser]

29. Do what I say

thanks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. Or just keep lying. Your choice.

[bertman]

30. You can be damn sure there will be NO Progressive revolt. Progressives only roll over.

"Revolt" in the progressive dictionary looks just like "capitulate" in Webster's.

Rec this thread.

[postulater]

35. Since they've removed all the good stuff, maybe

they could remove the mandate.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz disagree with you.

Both of them have repeatedly said on MSNBC that they fully expect that any offending abortion policy language will be removed in
conference since the House bill passed with the Stupak amendment in it.

Also, Senator Barbara Boxer just said this the other day:

Abortion remains at the heart of Nelson’s resistance to supporting the bill. Also in the negotiations was liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a leading abortion rights supporter in the Senate. She expressed confidence that the Senate could craft language to create a “firewall” that would segregate government funds away from any private funds used to pay for an abortion.

“We spent all day trying to address the issue of a firewall, we've made progress and I'll talk to you about it more tomorrow, for sure," Boxer said. “I'm optimistic that we can get 60 votes, yes.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=75939&mesg_id=75939

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. You are probably misreading them

The Nelson language will not be removed in conference. That's just a fact.

The Stupak language probably will.

And since that language is not in the senate bill it has nothing to do with the OP whatsoever, which is about the senate bill.

[ClarkUSA]

38. No, you're just ignoring what they're saying because it doesn't fit your spin.

I agree with Howard Dean when he said on MTP this morning that he wanted the Senate bill to go to conference so language can be fixed:

I would let this bill go to conference committee and see if we can fix this bill more… Let's see what they add to this bill and make it work.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/20/howard-dean-walks-it-back.aspx

Dean also "said the Senate bill had actually “improved” over the past few weeks..." Go figure. Pres. Obama said the same thing.

Senator Barbara Boxer own words are very clear:

Abortion remains at the heart of Nelson’s resistance to supporting the bill. Also in the negotiations was liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a leading abortion rights supporter in the Senate. She expressed confidence that the Senate could craft language to create a “firewall” that would segregate government funds away from any private funds used to pay for an abortion.

“We spent all day trying to address the issue of a firewall, we've made progress and I'll talk to you about it more tomorrow, for sure," Boxer said. “I'm optimistic that we can get 60 votes, yes.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=75939&mesg_id=75939

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. Jesus f'ing christ... do you even read these things?

“We spent all day trying to address the issue of a firewall, we've made progress and I'll talk to you about it more tomorrow, for sure," Boxer said. “I'm optimistic that we can get 60 votes, yes.”

And where do you need 60 votes? In the United States fricking Senate.

You post something about an attempt at an amendment to a bill in the Senate to counter an argument about conference.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Of course I do. However, unlike you, I don't twist what is said into spin.

Both Senator Boxer and Rep. Wasserman Schultz have been on MSNBC repeatedly to say that any offending abortion policy
language will be changed or removed in conference. I trust them more than you. Also, Howard Dean, while walking back
his "Kill the Bill" statement earlier this week during his MTP appearance today, also said this:

"I would let this bill go to conference committee and see if we can fix this bill more… Let's see what they add to this bill
and make it work." http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/20/howard-dean-walks-it-back.aspx

Like Howard Dean, I'll wait until the final bill emerges before passing judgment. Pres. Obama is working behind the scenes
with Bernie Sanders and others to press for better language, too. Too bad others can't stop their whining until then.

[donco6]

42. Conference never results in major changes to conditions.

It just changes small points of order and/or allows the finance office to crunch the numbers more accurately so they can change any percentages. This is the bill and it's not going to change.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

44. Actually it does often result in major changes

For instance, the House HCR bill will be changed sweepingly and fundementally... pretty much thrown out.

Conference often results in major changes whenever there are substantial differences between House and Senate.

But this particular conference will deviate little from the senate bill.

[Cha]

43. So does Dean..

<snip>

"This morning, Howard Dean walked back from earlier statements encouraging Democrats to “kill” the Senate health care bill. On Thursday, Dean wrote that “this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America,” but during his appearance on Meet The Press, Dean argued that yesterday’s manager’s amendment significantly improved the legislation. “I would let this thing go to conference committee and let’s see if we can fix it some more,” Dean said:"

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x79586

[ClarkUSA]

46. Thanks for the FACTS. Add Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Weiner and SEIU's Andy Stern to that mix.

Gee, guess who rational progressives are going to believe?

;)