I understand supporting the House legislation but

[cali]

anyone who thinks that it will get through the Senate intact is deceiving him/herself. It's not very good to begin with and it's about to get a whole lot worse.

[FBaggins]

1. I think that the idea is to get SOMETHING passed in the House

and then another bill in the Senate (even if "worse") and then "fix" the whole thing in conference (where few "blue dogs" or republicans will have a voice).

Then hope that momentum and public opinion can get it over the finish line.

[skipos]

2. The senate is absolutely more conservative than the country, even with 60 dems.

It is all those darned low population red states. Wyoming gets two nutty senators, Washington DC gets none, even though DC has more people.

[cali]

3. and weasel joe has sworn to filibuster it.

And yeah, I know that Wyoming has two Senators, but then so does Vermont.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. I do not understand it

If the house bill precluded any private policy in the exchange covering sickle-cell or prostate cancer I could certainly not wrap my head around supporting it.

If one doesn't draw the line at rights and against establishment of religion where will it ever be drawn?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. Yep. I'm very nervous about the Senate results.

I'm not very optimistic.

[David__77]

6. Isn't there a way to circumvent a filibuster?

If it is at all possible, it should be done.

[endless october]

7. it's marginal now.

if they water it down in the senate, it's useless.