TPMDC
House to Senate: We're Ready On Health Care If You Are
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Rep. George Miller (D-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
Leading Democrats in the House still insist that "all options are on the table" to move ahead on health care. But for the first time since last Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, it's clear that they're coalescing around the most widely discussed option: moving ahead with the Senate bill once it's clear that it will be changed through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. Before they can move ahead, they need the Senate to make some real headway on their end of the bargain--and they're not getting the signs they need.
"I thought we could get the votes in the House to pass the [Senate] bill if fixes to the Senate bill can be done," House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) told reporters today.
"That would be a good option as far as I'm concerned," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), leader of the House progressives' health care task force. "I could support it. Reconciliation. Majority rule."
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA)--one of the key architect's of the House health care bill--gives it the high sign. "I think reconciliation's an appropriate way to proceed on reconciling the budget requirements," he said. "It's available to us. That was very specifically handled that way when we passed the budget."
The hang up, they now say, is not on their end, but that they first need a high sign from the Senate that the two chambers can work in lockstep.
"We have to wait to see what they think they can pass," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). "The sense they give us is that Reid doesn't know from issue to issue what they can get votes for."
But, he adds, it's the only path forward that makes any real sense. "It's the only practical way. Everyone's in the same place--we want to get as much as we can get
However, though the idea has begun to resonate with House members in theory, they're not willing to hang their hopes on the Senate, an institution they increasingly distrust. They want something concrete first, before they'll move ahead with the Senate health care bill.
"The idea of doing the Senate bill and then doing the reconciliation on spec just to see what happens--I don't think anyone really thinks that's a good idea," Weiner said. "I don't know if the Senate literally has to move first, but at least they have to give us the high sign on what it is that they can do and can't do. And we're not getting much guidance from them, and we're also not getting much guidance from the mothership about what the White House really wants, and what they're prepared to push for, etc."
And then there's the X-Factor: What will President Obama say about the health care reform push in his State of the Union address tomorrow.
"A lot hangs on what the President says tomorrow," said Rep. John Larson (D-CT)
Weiner echoed this sentiment. "He needs to give us some legislative marching orders here, because anything less than that is going to be seen as his acquiescence to us essentially walking away from it. And I think that would be regrettable from all sides."
Comments (154) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
masanf
January 26, 2010 9:57 PM
Multiple Senate Democrats came out tonight and said they would try to stop reconciliation from being used.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 26, 2010 9:59 PM in reply to masanf
But those were the usual "gang of assclowns".
We weren't counting on their votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 26, 2010 10:01 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Yeah, and the more Senate Dems that come out and say that reconciliation is an unsavory process, the more you get moderate House members saying the same thing. This thing ain't passing anytime soon, and the notion that Nancy Pelosi has 218 votes is pure bullshit, and everyone knows it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 27, 2010 3:26 AM in reply to masanf
"everyone" or just you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 5:21 AM in reply to cube3u
just him
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 27, 2010 6:35 AM in reply to Alex39
Are you so sure ? I've read of a few (including Pelosi) who are not confident of 218 votes. What do you know that she doesn't ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to rbe1
I pay attention to the date stamp on articles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristi
January 26, 2010 10:12 PM in reply to masanf
We only need 50.
The jackasses that made everything so damn hard in the first place can make their obnoxious statements and tell 30 million uninsured that they don't give a damn because the process is more important then their lives. How noble.
We can lose 9 - Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu, ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
January 26, 2010 11:52 PM in reply to Kristi
McCaskill, Bayh, Webb...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 27, 2010 3:25 AM in reply to benintn
McCaskill will NOT vote against this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
January 27, 2010 9:08 AM in reply to cube3u
Agreed! Claire will do the right thing and vote FOR HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to CityGuy
Better call her. Because she's been making noises about trying bipartisanship instead. So has Kerry -- see down thread. So has Dodd. It's not just the ConservaDems; this is a disease endemic to the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
January 27, 2010 8:22 AM in reply to Kristi
I was told when I was young that the senate was created to be the more "mature" legislative body.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 27, 2010 8:23 AM in reply to Kristi
Byrd and Feingold.
They have principled objections to using reconciliation no matter what the purpose.
You won't get their votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 27, 2010 9:01 AM in reply to zonk
I think in the end that Byrd and Feingold would pass the fix through reconciliation.
Even Landrieu says that she is against it but could be persuaded if everything was transparent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 26, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to masanf
I think that some are against it but I think with much pushing we can get a group of 50 Dem Senators to consider it. It would have to take pushing from Biden and Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 12:09 AM in reply to Maritza
And us...if yours is one of the likely 50+ (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 27, 2010 1:11 AM in reply to rj
I called my Senators today. I will call again tomorrow. It only took a couple of minutes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 5:23 AM in reply to barbara63
It's really easy. And the staffers are nice young people who probably agree with you that their bosses are destroying the Party's morale. At least that's what it sounds like when I call Durbin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
January 27, 2010 12:35 AM in reply to masanf
Forget the Republican-Lites, like Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu.
REAL Dems know that to win in November, REAL reform needs to pass.
Stand up for what's right, and forget the bogus narrative of the main stream media.
REMEMBER, Independent voters are NOT centrists. They gravitate to strength and leadership, and expect actual change for the better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 27, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to masanf
Lordy, what planet are you people living on? The Senate is done, finished, caput. If the House tries to change anything in the Senate bill, it has to be voted on AGAIN by BOTH houses. Considering how close the votes were previously, without compromises, it will surely fail.
But the really best part of all, is that the collective ego of the Democrat House is so great, it would prefer nothing, over voting on the Senate version. Thank goodness for lefty arrogance. Oh, and union unwillingness to pay tax on prime benefits.
Heh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 27, 2010 2:13 AM in reply to shooter242
Yeah, right, the "lefties." You just assume the blue dogs and the abortion nuts are on board.
From what I've read, you're wrong.
But keep splitting the party apart, it's doing wonders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 27, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to DA in LA
That person is no Democrat; s/he refers to "Democrat House", which is a give away that s/he is a wingnut pretenting to be a Democrat and/or progressive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
January 27, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to AhTrini1
Where have you guys been? Shooter has never pretended to be anything but a Republican. He's always been honest about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
January 27, 2010 2:51 AM in reply to shooter242
They won't be changing the Senate bill. If the current plan goes through, the House will be passing the Senate bill as is. Then there will be a separate bill containing amendments to the Senate bill, which will be passed by both houses through "reconciliation," a process which requires only a plain majority, thus avoiding filibuster in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 27, 2010 6:39 AM in reply to shooter242
Why dump on the House ? They passed a good bill, a little more expensive, but at least it had a public option to offset the impact of a mandate. The House did it right. It's Obama, Emanuel, and the Senate that fucked everything up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
solerso68
January 27, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to shooter242
yeah, thank goodness. ive spent most of my adult life without health care. I dont have any now. Im not In the mood to be told by jackasses from the millionaire club that i have to use what little disposable income i have to buy worthless insurance from the for profit health care racket. NOTHING in this bill "provides health care for 35 million people" it forces 35 million people to buy a product from irresponsible, unethical companies, that they admit wont provide access to health care. health insurance is not the same thing as health care. so to all of you who are in this just to see the republicans eat some crow. i hope you continue to lose on this BIG time. Im also a life long democrat, and a radical liberal. I wont be sending anymore money to either of those august bodies (house or senate) they can just continue to get the money from corporate lobbyists. go ahead cheerleaders win one for the gipper if you can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
January 27, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to shooter242
Obviously not the same planet as you. On my planet, public education, which includes civics and reading comprehension, is free. I am guessing it was too expensive on your planet, thus you skipped those classes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 26, 2010 9:59 PM
Someone needs to get their stories straight, because this was posted an the NY Times 45 minutes ago:
"With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh
January 26, 2010 10:02 PM
Quite a few said it is not their "preferred" option but only three have completely ruled out supporting it: Lincoln, Bayh and Nelson.
Get the package put together and then make the White House put pressure on enough Senators to get us to 50 votes. That will happen... we will have 50 votes. They just need to be pressured into getting it done and soon.
Again, maybe the house should start the reconciliation bill and send it to the Senate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
January 26, 2010 10:09 PM in reply to Josh
LIBerman will know doubt gripe and moan like the arrogant child that he is.
I say, FULL STEAM AHEAD!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilson
January 26, 2010 11:26 PM in reply to Ethan
It will not happen.
The senate will drag their feet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 12:13 AM in reply to Josh
And don't leave it to the White House. If your senator's one of the likely 50+ (especially in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
January 26, 2010 10:04 PM
What exactly is the "mothership" from Weiner's perspective?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
January 26, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to Former Federal Employee
It sounds like the WH to me...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
January 26, 2010 10:26 PM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
Maybe, but
And we're not getting much guidance from them, and we're also not getting much guidance from the mothership about what the White House really wants
Weiner makes it sound as though the "mothership" is distinct from the White House or anyone in it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
January 26, 2010 10:06 PM
Is Pelosi going to tell us what "fixes" she needs from the Senate or is she just going to keep everything open ended to ensure that nothing gets done?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 26, 2010 10:43 PM in reply to OhioGuy
That is exactly what I was thinking. The only way their suggestion works is for the House to write exactly what fixes the House wants(can pass) and ask the Senate to pass them first.
Furthermore, the House has to assure the Senate that they will pass both the Senate bill and the "Reconciliation fix bill" before the Senate will pass the Reconciliation bill.
I guess both houses have to hold votes on these issues at the same time...so that no one exposes themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to Darrius
I assume they're talking about the deal that had basically already been struck just before the MA vote. Wouldn't mind seeing them add, say, Medicare buy-in; but if the Senate's proving balky over crap they've already agreed to, I'll take the fixes I can get. For now.
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
January 26, 2010 10:07 PM
There's no leadership in the Senate right now. Who are we kidding: There is no leadership in the Senate, period. They don't need Nelson, Lincoln and Bayh. Pass a limited bill through reconciliation -- 50 votes are all that's needed. For those of you that insist on passing a bill: Call your senator and tell them to get back to work. If they can't do this, then place the blame where it belongs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 26, 2010 10:10 PM in reply to whitesauce
218 votes for this thing do not exist in the House, or they would have come out and said so. YOu have no moderates coming out in support of this thing; in fact it is the exact opposite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
January 26, 2010 10:19 PM in reply to masanf
The hold-up on this bill in the House is not from the moderates, it's from the progressives. They're waiting on changes and they have been vocal about it. The House has indicated this evening that it can get 218 votes. Is your source the NYT or is there another? I see no evidence that this all couldn't happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 26, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to masanf
I think they already have the votes, they are just trying to get all that they can get from the process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 1:23 AM in reply to Darrius
But they're right to push; they're just asking for what was agreed to in negotiations before the MA vote, so there's really no excuse for the Senate not to act. If your senator's one of the likely 50+ (especially if they're in the leadership), call them and push; they need to hear from all of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 26, 2010 10:09 PM
Notice how the only people who are claiming they want to use reconciliation are those people in safe districts. Not one single moderate has come out in support of using reconciliation, not one. As the NY Times and Politico articles hint at, this thing is dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
January 26, 2010 10:33 PM in reply to masanf
You're really overstating the NYT article. It's not nearly as cynical as you are. Anyone who is reading this should read the article and come to your own opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 26, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to whitesauce
Don't waste your time arguing with a right wing troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WiliamWalace
January 27, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to masanf
exactly the problem. Moderates are on in Washington to be in Washington. They don't give a damn about anything but being re-elected. If they aren't gonna get the job done, it will be done without them. Majority rules
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GermanyOrFlorida
January 26, 2010 10:09 PM
JUST PASS THE DAMN THING.
Then blackmail the Senate into passing the fixes by bashing on Ben Nelson and Mary Landreiu.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 12:34 AM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
If bashing on Nelson and Landrieu worked, Obama would have signed a bill with a public option by now. If your senator's one of the likely 50+ votes for the reconciliation fix (especially if they're in the leadership) call and put the pressure on. Hearing from constituents means even more than hearing from the White House, especially now when they're freaking out over November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
January 26, 2010 10:09 PM
Yeah, as an actuary, I'd like to know what the House would require the Senate to pass in order for the House to accept the Senate's bill. So far, except for the Federal Exchange -- and even that seems rather limited -- there isn't anything the House is demanding the Senate pass that will more than marginally improve the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the House's move seems more like about power than actually making a dramatic improvement in the bill. Either that, or House Democrats haven't learned much about health policy the last seven months. The latter is probably more the case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
January 26, 2010 11:54 PM in reply to jimbomoron
expanded Medicare coverage. more choice and competition available via nonprofit public options that compete directly with the for-profit ins cos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
January 27, 2010 10:22 AM in reply to benintn
The public option at negotiated rates would only marginally improve the bill as the CBO predicts it will have higher rates than private plans. Because older adults would be forgoing the generational subsidy from the community rating, I doubt the early Medicare buy-in will improve the bill much, if at all.
If the House were asking for its subsidy levels and its version of the employer and individual mandate, then we'd be talking some major improvements. But so far, I haven't seen any demands that would justify the delay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 12:27 AM in reply to jimbomoron
House and Senate negotiators, with the WH, had already agreed to a set of fixes to the Senate bill as the last step before final passage just before the MA vote (adjusting the excise tax and a few other things); I think that's the stuff the House is waiting to see. It was basically a done deal before the advent of Senate Majority Leader Brown, so the Senate shouldn't need a cattle prod to act. But evidently they do...
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 26, 2010 10:12 PM
Yeah, the Plan B strategy is working so well, this is what Harry Reid had to say when asked about it:
"We’re not on health care now...”
Another choice quote from the NY Times article:
"Some Democrats said they did not expect any action on health care legislation until late February at earliest, perhaps after Congress returns from a weeklong recess after Presidents’ Day"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/health/policy/27health.html?hp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 26, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to masanf
The idea that the Senate Bill Mark II wouldn't be ready until after Presidents' Day isn't all that surprising. If it were just a matter of tweaking language, writing the legislation would be easy. My understanding is that getting a bill ready to go through the reconciliation process requires a bit more finesse, and therefore would take a bit longer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 26, 2010 10:16 PM
At least the obstacle is clear now. As always, it's the ConservaDems in the Senate. Politico and the Hill both have articles to this effect:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/78213-dems-woo-snowe-collins-in-hope-of-saving-reform
The Hill article suggests that Obama & Congressional leaders are not seeing eye to eye with the Footdragger Caucus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
January 26, 2010 10:21 PM in reply to Alex39
I don't see how we can determine who's most to blame unless both level with us on their requirements. If the House is holding out for the public option, then I blame them. If the Senate is unwilling to make adjustments to the cadillac tax, then it's clearly their fault.
By being coy both sides are able to keep denying fault. And it's getting really tiresome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 26, 2010 10:24 PM in reply to OhioGuy
No one's talking about the public option. Some of the articles make the House's list clear -- Hoyer for instance has done so. Nat'l exchange, revisions to the excise tax, and getting rid of Nebraska sweetheart deal, etc. It's not rocket science.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
January 26, 2010 10:28 PM in reply to Alex39
Then let's get a list and get the House to stand behind it.
The problem with the HCR process since at least last Summer is that the Democrats have never been able to consolidate and focus on one plan. Instead every single congressman is able to say "I'm for HCR 100%. I'm just not for THAT HCR. I want the other HCR, or maybe that one over there."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 26, 2010 11:31 PM in reply to OhioGuy
Honestly, that's not the problem. Here's their list.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/clyburn-house-dems-will-pass-senate-bill-if-fix-is-guaranteed-urges-obama-to-push-dems-harder/
That's the majority whip of the House -- if he says he can do it, he can do it. The problem is that the Senate is not interested in even negotiating with them at the moment, because they're courting Snowe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 1:03 AM in reply to Alex39
Yeah, I think that list is basically what negotiators had agreed to just before the MA election; no excuse for the Senate not to act on it.
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ votes (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP. (And yes, I intend to repeat this every time I comment here. Spamming in a good cause...)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
January 26, 2010 10:24 PM in reply to Alex39
Senate conservatives? Really?
That's what these headless chickens in the HR would have us believe
If HCR dies, it will die in the Democratic controlled House of Representatives
As I said, what kind of fools do they take us for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
January 26, 2010 10:22 PM
The Senate leadership can gaurantee nothing save a bruising, probably long, and definitely acrimonious reconciliation fight
Do these House Dems take us for fools?
Cut the crap and pass the bill
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
January 26, 2010 10:33 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
Clyburn knows the Senate leadership can guarantee nothing.
"Oh we had to kill the bill because the Sanate couldn't give us a guarantee."
Like that's going to convince anyone or save their sorry asses...
If HCR fails, the House Dem leadership will have killed it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
January 27, 2010 12:13 AM in reply to JohnMcCSF
Its been over sence last Tuesday, remember what happened?
It was a Republican Victory in Massachusetts. President (George W.) Obama could not even admit it was all about Health Care and his promise of Transparency. It was like Ms Nancy's panties where in a big knot. If they pass a bill, they own it, and it will be around there neck like a anchor in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 27, 2010 3:36 AM in reply to inokeah
Pass the bill and the Reps and Dems can slug it out in the elections. Nothing unreasonable about that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
January 27, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to inokeah
Play nice or go comment on some other site. It's incredibly sexist to use the term 'panties in a big knot' when referring to a female politician. You give yourself away, troll - you don't respect women or progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 26, 2010 10:23 PM
I'm like >this
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 26, 2010 10:25 PM in reply to Alex39
I'm like *this* far from advocating the violent overthrow of the US Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinmanic
January 26, 2010 10:26 PM
Why doesn't the House just pass the Senate bill, and then dare the Senate not to fix it? Or, why doesn't the House just pass the Senate bill and let it be done with? The Senate bill is way better than the status quo. Anything is better than the status quo. And once a bill is passed, it's easier to fix things later. Jesus Christ, this is so frustrating.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 27, 2010 2:15 AM in reply to tinmanic
Because American's don't like it. Because unions would be gone as a voting block, along with their cash.
The bill as is would destroy the Democratic Party for years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 8:57 AM in reply to DA in LA
Americans like what it is in the bill. They don't like that they've been told is in the bill. If the bill becomes law, they will like it, which will help the Democrats. If the bill fails, then people will never know what was in it, and the Democrats look weak and incompetent, which will help the Republicans. This is a representative democracy. Representatives are obligated to use their own judgment, not alter their positions weekly or daily based on polls.
Organized labor does not want Democrats to lose elections, and they know what will happen if the Dems fail on this. Andy Stern of the SEIU, which is the second largest labor union in the country, wants the House to pass this bill.
The only rational thing for the Dems to do is pass this bill immediately, for both electoral and moral reasons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 26, 2010 10:33 PM
Okay, I understand the temptation to say a Pox on both their Houses.
But in this instance it's pretty clear to me that the Senate has been the problem. After all, why are we even still talking about this issue in fricking January?
Because Max Baucus et al wanted to be bipartisan, and so they let Grassley and Snowe play Lucy and the football for two months. A lot of the political damage incurred is due to the way Baucus has let the process drag out. And now the same crew is still courting Snowe! Jesus. They'd rather negotiate with Republicans than with their own colleagues in the House of Representatives.
Jesus frickin Christ.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 27, 2010 12:34 AM in reply to Alex39
yes senators are cowardly corrupt assholes. Many of them are true idiots.
And yet the House has the power in one vote to alleviate a great deal of suffering and create a system that inevitably will be the subject of iterations of improvements and amendments for decades to come. Refusing to vote up the Senate bill with or without immediate fixes will hurt the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 1:38 AM in reply to Economides
But I think they're right (and within their rights as a body) to lob it back to the Senate; this is stuff that had basically already been agreed on before the MA vote, and aside from the substance of the thing the morons in the upper body still don't seem to get how disastrous this promises to be politically, especially for the very Dems who are balking now. I called my Congresswoman Friday and demanded she vote for the Senate bill; even got into a fight with a staffer about it. Now it sounds as if the House is ready to move; so now it's time to pressure the Senate as far as we can. If they prove as mindbogglingly craven and cowardly (and downright politically stupid) as to walk away from this, I'll be calling my Congresswoman again. But not yet.
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ votes for the reconciliation package (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 26, 2010 10:34 PM
Dems could lose eight votes and still get it though with a Biden vote.
Lieberscum, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Bayh are certainly against it. Webb and likely Warner as well. That means the Senate could only lose one more of Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Claire McCaskill, Harry Reid and good government types Byrd, Feingold and White House.
It ain't happening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 26, 2010 10:37 PM
You're a big boy, how about you do it yourself. Isn't the House supposed to be equal and all that guff? Maybe this is Obama trying to empower the House and Senate to become equal partners and not wait for marching orders. Under Bush, congress was whipped into being a rubber stamp.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 26, 2010 10:55 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Methinks the civics lesson will be lost on the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 26, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to agio
Sure, but the House could just pass the Senate bill. It's not Obama or the Senate who are going to kill the bill. Quite frankly Obama has little real pull in the Senate, they see him as Jr. Senator with only two years of experience.
The only message the House will get from Obama is one they wouldn't like to hear - pass the senate bill as is and move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 26, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
You may be right. If so, I think healthcare reform is dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 1:48 AM in reply to agio
They need to hear from their constituents. They've been bedwetting (thanks, Plouffe, for the image) since the MA election, convinced they need to heed the screamers. Let them hear us for a change -- it'll mean more than a call from Obama (he can't vote for them). If your senator's one of the likely 50+ votes for the reconciliation fix (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 2:22 AM in reply to rj
Sorry, read your comments too quickly..."they" means senators (they may not listen to Obama, but they may listen to enough of us). The House has been getting calls since late last week, which may be what's moved them as far as they've come. Let's get this thing done, one way or the other...
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
solerso68
January 27, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
o. must be another secret "good" plan from obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristi
January 26, 2010 10:39 PM
I suppose it is too much to hope that the President could have a letter signed by at least 50 Senators promising to vote for a Reconcilliation Bill including the agreed upon provisions which he could present to the Speaker tomorrow at the SOTU?
Yeah, I know, too much.
It be nice though.
Hey, I don't care when exactly you give it to Nancy, just get it agreed to and do it NOW.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Memekiller
January 26, 2010 10:42 PM
Thank God. Stymied is better than dead. Guess it's time to turn the heat on the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 1:53 AM in reply to Memekiller
Yupyupyup. If your senator's one of the likely 50+ (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 26, 2010 10:45 PM
I like this gem from the NYT article,
Because, you know, passing something through a majority is just so unamerican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 26, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to agio
Yeah that argument won't work with anyone. The average citizen thinks that you can pass anything through the Senate with 51 votes. Lots of smart people who know of the filibuster can't emotionally accept that you need 60 votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 26, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to Darrius
And why should they? There is nothing in the Constitution that says it requires 60 votes to bring a measure to a vote. Merely this,
The filibuster -- in my opinion a profoundly anti-democratic instution -- was created by the Senate, and the Senate alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 27, 2010 12:57 AM in reply to agio
True, but there is no one to appeal to. If the Senate wants to require 60 then 60 it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
precisioncontrol
January 27, 2010 12:28 AM in reply to agio
She'll be gone in November anyway. I think the Democrats can safely ignore her nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
January 26, 2010 11:10 PM
Please. Pass. The. Damn. Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
January 26, 2010 11:43 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX
Co.Sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 27, 2010 8:44 AM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
Co-sign x3
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 26, 2010 11:22 PM
Yeah, talk about moving goal posts. The House is free to pass the Senate bill as is. No action further action is required on the Senate's part. Just pass the bill. As is. And Obama signs it and gets a much needed momentum boost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 2:06 AM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Look, I practically had a screaming match with my Congresswoman's staffer Friday when she said her boss wouldn't commit to voting for the Senate bill. But in fact it's the Senate that moved the goalposts: the House is just asking for them to pass the stuff that negotiators had already agreed on just before the MA election. And that stuff is worth pushing the Senate on. (Not just the excise tax, but undoing the Nebraska deal and the other most unseemly stuff, which you'd think would actually be politically appealing). If they truly prove immovable (read craven, cowardly and politically unfathomably stupid), I'll be back where you are. But for now, the august members of the vaunted upper chamber need to hear from their constituents.
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ votes for reconciliation (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
January 26, 2010 11:27 PM
Proceed with the knowledge that 95% of the Senate are liars. Keep your hand over your wallet when meeting with them. As for leadership, don't count on any. If you still think this is a good idea, then by all means, proceed.
The White House saw the writing on the wall but did not like the message. Apparently they are busy rearranging the letters to fit what they want it to. The message is, was, and always will be that you, Mr. President, have not lived up to your word. You have played a shell game on trusting voters and siding with the rich and powerful every time. The sad thing is, your intelligent, you should know better. Better speeches with new gimmicky messages will not work this time. You are in for a long haul down. Maybe you should just do what you promised and see how that works out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
January 26, 2010 11:30 PM
Real change will not need a fancy speech to get noticed. Mr. President, If you just would do what you promised us you would do, then you could call it change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
January 26, 2010 11:43 PM
Ah, screw the lot of them: Obama for trying to be "bipartisan", the Senate for being the Senate and the House (with the exception of Pelosi, Dingell and a few others) for all the frakking blue dogs.
This shit stinks to HIGH heaven. If they can't get something half-assed decent passed and/or lose too many seats, I'm about thru with being a "pragmatist" politically.
It may be time to just advocate for what I really want to happen and screw the rest of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 26, 2010 11:56 PM
Why are so many people pretending that it is all up to the House of Representatives at this point? If the Senate would move ahead with reconciliation, and implement a robust package of budget-related HC reforms, then progressives in the House would pass the Senate bill and this little game of "you show me yours first" would be over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 27, 2010 12:45 AM in reply to Watt Childress
Because the difference between the status quo and just passing the Senate Bill is much larger than passing the senate bill and passing it with the fixes.
The truth is that we will be amending and improving whatever we get for years and years to come. We have to get something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 27, 2010 2:17 AM in reply to Economides
If your first premise is destined to become the party line, I suggest that the Democratic majority in Washington play it straight with the public. Tell citizens they intend to push their signature Senate bill through because: 1) it is really what they want; and/or 2) it is better than nothing.
That said, your second premise seems like a pleasant pipe-dream. If reconciliation doesn't happen now, it would be foolish for us to expect future improvements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 2:58 AM in reply to Watt Childress
Economides is right on both counts: Medicare continued to be improved after initial passage, and over a much shorter time frame than all the false starts on broad-based health-care reform. For that to happen with HCR, of course, the Dems need not to go extinct as a party, so they need to be shaken into sanity on this thing. The House seems to be getting there; it's more than justified for them to put pressure on the Senate to vote for the fixes that had already been negotiated right before the MA election (and btw, Obama's on the House's side in this, according to a Hill story somebody above linked to). Will pressure work? We'll see; now the Senate needs a push from their constituents to get out of the fetal position and do the substantively and politically sane thing.
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ votes for the reconciliation package (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 27, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to rj
I appreciate your activism. If we can convince the Senate to use reconciliation on HCR, I see no reason for them to limit themselves to fixes agreed upon before the MA election. That package was negotiated under the assumption that they needed 60 votes.
If we only need 50 votes, maybe Democrats can pull out of this ditch with a public option and/or an expanded Medicare buy-in. That's what I reiterated to my Senators when I urged them to support reconciliation earlier today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to Watt Childress
The one reason I see at the moment is how difficult it apparently is just to get the Senate Dems to vote for what they'd already signed on to; material expansion of the package would give them (including the procedural hawks like Byrd and Feingold) an excuse not to move at all. I hasten to add that I've made plenty of calls in the last several months about the public option, and the Medicare buy-in, so I'd love to believe what you suggest is possible. Personally I plan to start those calls again as soon as this bill passes (knock wood); and I'm not altogether sure that attaching Medicare buy-in itself wouldn't be doable (it'd certainly be easy to implement and sell). But things are so very iffy right now, and the Senate is so very pathetically dysfunctional, that I think right now we need to find the sweet spot that'll get them to act and not just to reject the pressure. Love to be proven wrong...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
January 27, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to rj
For what it's worth, two House Reps have circulated a letter to Sen. Majority Leader Reid asking him to consider a public option as part of a budget reconciliation package.
Here's a clip:
"While there were valid reasons stated for not using reconciliation before, especially given that some important provisions of health care reform wouldn’t qualify under the reconciliation rules, those reasons no longer exist. The public option would clearly qualify as budget-related under reconciliation, and with the majority support it has garnered in the Senate, it should be included in any healthcare reform legislation that moves under reconciliation."
Here's the full letter:
http://whipcongress.com/letter
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 27, 2010 12:35 AM
If Dems think they have problems now, wait until HCR is perceived as truly dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jimminy
January 27, 2010 12:40 AM
The ball plopped at your feet. PICK IT UP, AND FRICKEN RUN FOR THE ENDZONE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jimminy
January 27, 2010 12:43 AM in reply to Jimminy
Damnit, its a team sport!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Khyber900
January 27, 2010 1:17 AM
The House should simply pass the bill, and I wish the President would tell them that clearly and directly. But, if he also pushes the Senate on this reconciliation side car, that might work, but I am very doubtful about conditioning the House vote on anything in the Senate because of general skittishness, GOP obstructionism, and a sense among Senators that the House should simply do the right thing and pass the bill as that is the quickest, simplest way to get it done.
The Plan B threatens to drag the process out unnecessarily when what we need to do is pass it now nad move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 2:17 AM in reply to Khyber900
Actually, the Plan B idea is the only thing that's kept HCR alive long enough for people to start to peer into the abyss. Since the House looks ready to move, we need to pressure the Senate, hard, to follow through on what they were ready to do before President Brown was elected. House members have been hearing from their constituents for days, and apparently the message took; now it's our senators' turn.
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 27, 2010 1:42 AM
If they are serious about this then I will support their efforts. It doesn't make me any less annoyed and disappointed that this had to be a "Plan" in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 3:27 AM
FYI, Chris Hayes discussed this on Maddow Tuesday; the segment's well worth watching:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/35090139#35090139
The quick take: his reporting indicates that this is definitely a live option, on both sides of the Hill, but that the Senate needs a collective kick in the pants -- and that very much includes the leadership, who don't seem to be seeing the urgency of quick action. So...
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ -- especially if they're in the leadership -- call. ASAP. (And it probably can't hurt to call the leadership even if you're not in their states...)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 5:18 AM in reply to rj
Let me revise that: if you have a Dem Senator at all, call. No matter who they are, they need to hear from us. They are absolutely killing morale in the base -- not just for 2010, but for a f*cking decade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rj
January 27, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to Alex39
Agreed -- there are a few clear lost causes, but it can't hurt for them to hear from us anyway (and even those lost causes depend on base/labor activity to get out the votes...).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 27, 2010 7:06 AM
Look, "pass the dams bill" morons: there is ample evidence that the excise tax is what caused labor voters in MA to sit out or migrate to Brown. And you jackasses want to replicate this clusterfuck on a national scale?
Either pressure your SENATORS to act- because whether you like it or not, that's where the action is- or STFU because you understand nothing. The Senate bill is something that the Democratic Party simply cannot afford to pass as-is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 27, 2010 8:51 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
It's true that Brown won because some union folks crossed over and voted Republican. It's also true that the union halls got plenty of calls and e-mails saying their votes were not for Coakley who supported this tax. It's also true that union folks are an important part of the Democratic Party coaltion and that they are essential to GOTV efforts in campaigns.
The last time the unions hung tough was on creating the Homeland Security Department. Remember that one at all? The failure to pass that bill was used to hammer the Democrats in the midterm campaign where Bush gained seats in Congress--which broke the long-standing tradition of the winning prez party losing Congressional seats in the midterms.
And, really, a lot of those "Reagan democrats" came from the unions, now didn't they? Union members aren't as cohesive as they once were.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 27, 2010 8:58 AM in reply to cube3u
Look, they way they presently play politics the Democrats can and will turn EVERY hand into a loser. If they get a royal straight flush (which is what they had post-Bush), the GOP will bluff them into folding (which they have done so far). Nobody is going to follow a party without the guts to lead. Reagan Democrats. Progressives. Nobody but party functionaries will stay. Now is the time. Probably the last time for a very long time if they blow it: Do what is right for the American people. Just do it and let the chips fall where they may.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 9:04 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The Democratic party cannot afford to do anything else, because it is the only option, and failure on this issue will be a moral and electoral disaster. There is no option but to pass the Senate bill. The Senate will not agree to changes after the House votes. Either it is the Senate bill, or it's nothing. There is no other option, period.
Organized labor isn't stupid. They might be pissed off with the Senate bill, but they know they are better off with Dems than Republicans. If you get more Dems in office, you have a chance to improve the Senate bill. If you don't, then there is no chance of that whatsoever.
But first, the House has to pass the Senate bill as is an Obama has to sign it. There is no other option. None. If you are waiting for something else to happen, you are wasting your time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
January 27, 2010 9:33 AM in reply to Skybolt
Passing a bad bill to "ensure" a better bill MIGHT exist in the future if more Dems are elected is FUCKING INSANE. Name one bill that has ever been "improved."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 9:50 AM in reply to readytoblowagasket
Most major social legislation has been improved over time. One might legitimately oppose this bill of one believes that 1) it is worse than the status quo and 2) we will get a better bill later.
The fact is, whether it's a bad bill or not, it's better than the status quo. And we will not get anything better than this for the next twenty years unless we pass this bill.
If we don't pass this bill, it will do the Democrats great harm electorally, which will make health care and everything else worse.
If you want to improve health care in this country, and get more Dems elected, you support this bill. If you want health care to get worse, and get more Republicans elected, you oppose it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
January 27, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to Skybolt
I asked you to name the legislation that has been "improved," but you gave me your opinion instead, which I didn't ask for. I already know your opinion, so please name one thing that has ever been improved. I personally like to deal with facts, and I can give examples of shitty legislation that have not been improved over time:
Patriot Act (2001)
No Child Left Behind (2001)
DOMA (1996)
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to readytoblowagasket
"Opinion" does not mean "fact I don't like."
I'm not your research staff. But Social Security, Medicare, and the first Civil Rights Act in 1957 are examples of the fact that if you pass a first step, it opens up the opportunity to take more steps.
I want socialized medicine, but I'm not going to reject all possible progress just because the federal government isn't ready to make that leap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
January 27, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to Skybolt
Thanks, Skybolt. You've demonstrated in your examples of Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights legislation that it's far better to start with smaller, precise acts targeting specific and limited populations and expand to additional populations down the road.
The health care bill we are dealing with does the opposite: It starts big, and in order to do so, it guarantees benefits to corporations, not to people who need health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket
The current health care bill is tiny. It is miles away from adequate. It doesn't cover everybody, it leaves private insurance in place, and it doesn't even have a watered-down public option. The current bill is what's left after a year of fighting with Republicans and fake Dems to get any bill passed at all. This is your idea of big? It's likely that you have no idea how big the problem is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
January 27, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Skybolt
We are in agreement that the current health bill is inadequate to fix health care in the United States.
But the current health bill actually preserves the "status quo"—namely, the profit margin of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. That's what status quo is: the existing state of affairs.
I don't have any health insurance at all, so please save your condescension for someone else. I know how big the problem is. The reform won't help me: I don't need insurance and neither does anyone else. People need health care, not health insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket
It's not about you, you know. More people will be covered under the Senate bill than are covered now, and those that are covered now will no longer have to worry about being thrown off the plan for being sick. Some of those millions of people might not agree with your stance on this.
How will helping you buy health insurance not help you? Do you feel the subsidies are too small, or are you just holding out for perfection?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
January 28, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to Skybolt
Yes it is about me! The mandate to buy a company's product (health insurance) is definitely about me! It's about everyone, and I happen to fit into the category of "everyone."
I thought you were smart, Skybolt. Apparently I was wrong. Bye!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 28, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to readytoblowagasket
You sound like a 14 year old girl. Are you a 14 year old girl?
What you think is best for you is not the same as what's best for the country as a whole. It's possible that what is best for the country as a whole is bad for you, but it's more likely that you don't know what you're talking about. Congress does not write legislation specifically to make you happy. Sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
January 28, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to Skybolt
A 14-year-old girl. Not only are you stupid, you're sexist! So fuck off, asshole! (Ad hominem payback.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 28, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket
Try to stay calm. Before you know it, you'll be looking at colleges and then out on your own. All of this teenage emotion will seem less important then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
solerso68
January 27, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to Skybolt
so take out the mandate. we can get "universality" down the road.maybe. probably. hopefully. just make the insurance companies behave like every other company doing business in the U.S. they don't deserve extortion money from 35 million people who cant afford to pay it. whats so tough about that? failing that, that bill is neither Moral nor desirable and it WILL destroy the dem party. right winger indy's aren't coming on board. passing it alienates half the people who vote dem. who have already proven we will walk. the rest of you have already proven you will vote for them no matter what they do. the smart thing is to ditch it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to solerso68
The mandate is the most important part of the bill. It is how the bill covers the presently uninsured and how it controls costs. If you impose the new regulations without a mandate, the costs for the consumer will shoot upwards, and the situation gets worse -- unless you'd rather the federal government impose direct price controls.
If you don't want a mandate, you don't want anything. A mandate is part of how functional national health care systems work. You have to get everyone into the system so that healthy people are paying in. That is how you keep costs down, and coverage in place, for people who actually use the coverage.
If you don't vote, you are part of the problem. If you vote Republican, you are part of the problem. If you vote for some irrelevant third party, I sympathize with your narcissism, but you're still part of the problem.
If you do any of those three things because you refuse to understand how the health care system works and want the Democrats to pull a magical free health care bill of of the air and pass it despite the political and economic realities of America in the 21st century, then you are part of the problem and you probably always will be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
January 28, 2010 10:26 AM in reply to Skybolt
No, you are the problem, Skybolt, because you don't understand what you are pompously blathering about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 27, 2010 9:03 AM
It's time to give a kick in the pants to the Senators. The House has let it be known that they are on board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
smartone
January 27, 2010 9:10 AM
for the love of god
add Medicare buy-in for 55 and older that starts June 2010
it is slam dunk no brainer
they can run on it in 2010 elections and win
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eclecticbrotha
January 27, 2010 9:22 AM
I really hope this isn't just more buck-passing by the House but it sounds much better than the freaking out from last week. I still get the impression the House is still looking for an excuse not to do their jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 27, 2010 9:25 AM
I just got off the phone with Sen Kerry's office. I asked if the Senator favored using reconciliation to fix the health care bill. She said the senator preferred other approaches. I asked what they were. She said Kerry wants to reach across the aisle for a bi-partisan compromise. I was stunned. She reminded me that a Republican just won the MA senate seat and Kerry interprets that to mean that the country wants bi-partisanship. I told her Kerry was both spineless and stupid. It was downhill from there. So now we see where the problem is. Anybody from MA want to give Kerry a call, his number is 202-224-2742.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 10:14 AM in reply to wbgonne
I'm surprised you got him to acknowledge that openly. But yes -- we do see where the problem is. I think Dodd wants to try bipartisanship as well. Lucy and the f*cking football. So there's no way Reid has 50 votes for reconciliation yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to wbgonne
Hey, incidentally, I just read a comments thread over at balloon juice where someone spoke to Kerry's staff and got a diametrically opposed response. So there's a need for confirmation here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 27, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to Alex39
The statement about Kerry is also contradicted here:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/house-progressives-willing-to-back-modified-senate-bill-centrist-senators-resume-customary-posture-as-villains.php/comment-page-1#comment-1748446
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 27, 2010 9:37 AM
From the NYT: “We’re not on health care now,” Mr. Reid said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.”
He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.
----
That's right Harry, there's no reason to rush it. Might as well go ahead and drag it out for another year. That makes really good political sense. Good job. Heckuva job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
deadale
January 27, 2010 10:07 AM
Oh! Give it a rest people!
It's politics, what do you expect!
they're making some excuses... to divert whatever should be diverted and you know, it gives them the right escape from what their jobs really are blah... blah... blah...
^_^
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
January 27, 2010 10:23 AM
My idea: Fake out the GOP. Pretend you've dropped HCR, let Republicans get distracted by deficit reduction bashing, then quickly ram HCR through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
January 27, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to ilovebacon
could be what this 'cool down' period is for... who knows at this point.
It feels like August/September of the campaign right now and he needs to pull himself back from the brink
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weitberg
January 27, 2010 11:08 AM
Many still wonder whether the president will address health care during his speech tonight, or if he will try to convince Americans that reform was a Bush-era issue that he has simply had to deal with.
TheWeekinRebuke.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
January 27, 2010 11:26 AM
OK folks, now it's time to put pressure on the Senate, everyone who was outraged last week and contacting House members, time to start contacting your Senators. It will be a little trickier for the ones who aren't up for re-election next fall since the "hard-sell" of losing the election won't be there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
solerso68
January 27, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to Philv
oh believe me, i've never stopped contacting. and its not to get this monstrosity passed either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
January 27, 2010 5:06 PM
It's obvious.
Dems need to pass the Senate bill regardless of Senate committment.
Once passed it will provide its own motivation for reconciliation/reform. Or not. But it will be law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
January 27, 2010 5:21 PM
It's obvious.
Dems need to pass the Senate bill regardless of Senate committment.
Once passed it will provide its own motivation for reconciliation/reform. Or not. But it will be law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Atherton
January 27, 2010 5:33 PM
I am a longtime DEM, but I have a contrarian view of this letter from "experts".
One of the groups that will benefit greatly from either health care bill (other than the insurance companies, PhRMA, and Congressional Republicans at 2010-12 elections), are the so called health care "experts"----many of whom are signers of this letter----and though (perhaps?) well intentioned----most have a huge conflict of interest when they advocate publicly for Obamacare.
There are 128 or so new committees and boards established by the health care bill----adding immeasurable overhead to the administration of health care ---
Many of these people will get fat consulting contracts either as members or consultants to this myriad of committees and boards ---some of these boards are undemocratically unaccountable to the voters and even to Congress---- euphemistically called "independent",
-----those not on boards will likely be consulting directly to the Obama admin, to the states, and Congress, and/or to the special interests such as United Health, Cigna, and big PhRMA corporations.
And several signers/consultants are already making big money on health care "reform"----e.g., Gruber from MIT with $800K of consulting from the Obama admin, which he failed to disclose for months while advocating as an independent source.
It must be devastating for these folks to see their health care consultant "jobs bill"--- aka Health Care Bill-----ready to go down in flames.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 1:55 AM
But I think they're right (and within their rights as a body) to lob it back to the Senate; this is stuff that had basically already been agreed on before the MA vote, and aside from the substance of the thing the morons in the upper body still don't seem to get how disastrous this promises to be politically, especially for the very Dems who are balking now. I called my Congresswoman Friday and demanded she vote for the Senate bill; even got into a fight with a staffer about it. Now it sounds as if the House is ready to move; so now it's time to pressure the Senate as far as we can. If they prove as mindbogglingly craven and cowardly (and downright politically stupid) as to walk away from this, I'll be calling my Congresswoman again. But not yet.
If your senator's one of the likely 50+ votes for the reconciliation package (especially if they're in the leadership), call. ASAP.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?