If we kill the bill when will it come back up? Especially with the GOP handing Obama defeat

[wndycty]

1) I doubt it will come up before the midterm elections, because there are so many other issues like a jobs bill, cap and trade, immigration, the budget, that will take up bandwith.

2) Obama has spent way to much political capital on this, if he does not get a bill the GOP will think they can boss him around. Now of course a lot you guys will say they are already doing that and I call BULLSHIT! We are upset that the bill does not do enough, the GOP drew the line in the sand at no bill.

3) No matter how unhappy many of us are with this bill, any bill that would be introduced AFTER this would get kill will definitely weaker.

[xchrom]

1. Obama can take care of himself.

He's agrown up and making his own bed.

[wndycty]

2. OK forget Obama. . .when do you see Congress going back to work . . .

. . .and given the challenges they faced the first time around, tell me how they will a get a stronger bill passed.

[xchrom]

5. Dooms day scenarios are rarely accurate. Nt

[pnwmom]

15. And that goes also for those who predict doom if this bill is passed. n/t

[lapfog_1]

3. Kill this bill,

but pass another, right now, via reconciliation.

One that expands both Medicare (to 50 or 55) and Medicaid (to cover more of those under 50 without insurance for reasons of either too little money or pre-existing conditions).

Start a new bill, the patients bill of rights, to be passed by regular business. This is the one where we do all of the non monetary stuff (pre-existing, no caps, etc). There was once this exact bill before. find it and re-introduce it.

It won't pass anytime in the next 9 months, probably, but that's fine, we have the expanded Medicare (which everybody LIKES and understands) and Medicaid (which will be seen as the moral thing to do). And we can beat them up over the new "Patients Bill of Rights" (language the populists will like, even some teabaggers).

No mandates (folks, lots of folks, hate this), no "sweeping takeover" of health care. Incremental steps, using popular programs already in place.

It's clean, it's simple, and the Democrats would be heroes, and, best of all, none of this catering to Lieberman and Nelson (which makes the President look like Neville Chamberlain).

And, even better, by passing an expansion of both Medicare and Medicaid (with, say, a 2% income tax hike on those that earn over $200,000 individually, and $400,000 as a couple, to remain budget neutral), those programs take effect immediately, and the 2010 elections will be in the bag.

[still_one]

6. It won't happen, but I am just curious how would they do that? /nt

[lapfog_1]

8. Do what, expand Medicare and Medicaid?

Via reconciliation...

Very easy, you get the Senate parliamentarian (yup an actual civil servant, not elected to the post) to rule on the bill that it a) only affect existing programs, b) does not substantially change the nature of the existing program, and c) can increase or decrease funding for existing programs and raises (or lowers) taxes.

I submit that my proposal meets all those criteria.

W got his tax cuts through using this parliamentary procedure. In fact, it's been used by Republicans some 28 times in the last 30 years.

Once you have a ruling from the parliamentarian, you now only need 50 votes for passage. (Joe Biden can break a tie).

Then it's off to the House (no conference) for a straight up or down vote. Then off to the President for signing or veto.

Simple. Very democratic (small d).

It creates no new programs, and it affects the insurance industry NOT AT ALL.

And it can be done in weeks, not months or years. Weeks.

The insurance industry won't care that much about this. Those uninsured people under 50 are people they don't WANT. They might whine a bit about the Medicare over 50 or 55 expansion, but not too much... those old geezers (like ME) aren't that profitable to them anymore, what with our expanded medical needs and such. They will see the handwriting on the wall (Medicare for All) but, hey, when that day comes they may fight. But even if they fight TODAY, we already have 50+ Senators and a majority of the House ready to vote for both of these, and the tax increase.

The new Patients Bill of Rights is where the action will be, because that will affect every insurance company and anyone that currently HAS health care insurance. This is where we start "bending the cost curve" and "instituting rules and regulations on the industry"... but given the fight we just went through, this one will be much easier. First off, all those uninsured people that the teabaggers didn't want to pay for in the first place... why they are gone now. And no mandates to force insurance companies to pick them up. Now we fight over annual caps and lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions and review boards and appeals and stuff. And I bet we can win this battle easily.

But, by the end of January, President Obama can sign the Medicare and Medicaid expansion act of 2010 and by February a lot of people will get covered and receive their insurance cards. A *lot* of people. People that will remember this come November, 2010.... A *LOT* of very happy people. Did I say a LOT!!!

[still_one]

9. Yes, I understand that process, but they already said there would not be reconciliation

I am not saying that wouldn't be cool, it just isn't going to happen in this time and space

I hope I am wrong, if they do this, that would be extraordinary

[lapfog_1]

12. That's because they can't pass the current bill through reconciliation.

Which is why it must die.

It won't be easy to chop it up and pass it through reconciliation and regular business.

It's those mandates and profit margin limits (not profit limits, just margin limits) and the state by state exchanges and crap. The President and the Senate are now married to those ideas, and they can't think of reform without them (just like many of us can't think of reform without the "Public Option". They have put so much work into the current box that they are in, just a ton of it. And my proposal is definitely "out-of-the-box" thinking that scraps a lot of that work. And they are close. But to get this close, they had to compromise and compromise (which the President, apparently, likes to do), and they STILL have ZERO Republican votes for this. They have compromised to the point that they are in the parking lot, the line in the sand is waaaay out there on the beach somewhere.

So, to borrow a phrase... ENOUGH!!!

Kill this piece of crap with it's Lieberman sellout, it's Nelson sellout, it's mandates that nobody likes, and all the rest of it and just say no.

KISS - Keep It Simple and Stupid. The current bill is NOT KISS designed. You need a PhD in Insurance to understand all of it, it's hundreds or thousands of pages long. ENOUGH. Kill it.

Do 90 percent of what this does, only do it with two bills, both of which are easy to understand, one that can be passed right away (so the President doesn't lose face... in fact, he should be the one to address the nation next week and announce this plan). Sure, the flying monkey right will crow for a few weeks, but then, once the new plan is passed and on his desk, everyone will forget those "Waterloo" pundit bullshit remarks. Not to mention that should the current bill pass, those same idiots are going to say the SAME THINGS anyway ("great victory for the Tea Party! The President has met his match!" blah blah blah). So it doesn't matter. So do the right thing.

[still_one]

24. That was my original point, they won't kill it. It isn't going to happen. /n

[lapfog_1]

25. Then they are lemmings, jumping off the cliff.

It's a bad bill, it will prove to be wildly unpopular. It probably won't even be given a real chance because most provisions don't kick in until 2014. People will have three long years where "Obama signed the health care bill, how come my premiums are still going up... goddam Democrats".

You know that's going to happen.

We have multiple generations of "instant gratification" people walking around. People that are NOT patient with things. Irrational people.

And they won't care about the facts.

Oh well.

[Pirate Smile]

17. That is not a realistic option.

[lapfog_1]

21. Why? Because you say it isn't?

What if they can't get to 60 on Christmas eve. Wouldn't you want a back up plan?

This one CAN be done, people would LOVE IT, and IT'S EASY.

[still_one]

4. The bill will become law. As far as what will happen in 2010, it all depends on the

economy. If the economy starts to improve in a major way, the republicans are in trouble

I am not saying it will or won't, I am just saying a lot of things can happen

[bluestateguy]

7. Killing this bill would set off MONTHS of hand-wringing media coverage

about the "failed" Obama presidency. Night after night on the cable shows, every Sunday morning on the yak shows, magazine covers, etc. His approval ratings would drop even more. Why should you care? Because in that context it would be next to impossible to pick up the pieces and start anew with a more progressive bill.

The echo machine would try to goad us into the next logical step (to them anyway), which would be to just abandon health care reform and not do anything until after the elections at the earliest...

which would depress Democratic voters, and they would not show up, producing at least a GOP House and probably killing HCR for another decade. Obama would then be playing defense for the rest of 2011 and 2012 so as to avoid doing anything controversial in his reelection campaign.

I don't like it, but we are stuck with this bill for now, and will have to refine it in the coming months and years.

[laughingliberal]

11. So, we screw the American people to save the president and avoid bad press?

No damn body forced him to sit silent when there were decent proposals and provisions in the bill and then get up and cheer for it when it became as bad as it could get. I hate what's going on but he had plenty of opportunities to stand up and fight for a good bill. Had he shown any interest in that and then lost to the obstructionists in the Senate he could have bashed the hell out of them for it. Instead, he praised the work of Baucus and wagged his finger at 'those on the left.' Russ Feingold gave us the word-this was the bill he wanted all along and he is accountable for that. How in the hell would we improve this bill under the same people who wouldn't make it better to begin with. For that matter, President Obama will be playing defense the rest of his presidency if this passes. He can stand up and repeat those talking points about all the great things the bill does but people can add and subtract and a lot of them already know the evils of the industry he is turning them over to.

[Synicus Maximus]

10. The important thing is preventing a defeat for Obama.

[lapfog_1]

13. No it's not.

The President can suffer defeat now and then. The flying monkey right will say he was defeated whether this bill (as it is right now) passes or fails. And you KNOW they will.

The President must govern. And not worry about his image.

[laughingliberal]

14. Exactly! And his image would have been enhanced by standing up and fighting for the bills that

included the points he campaigned on. Had he been defeated then and the bill got watered down, it would have fallen on those who watered it down and he could have run against them. He would have been respected for standing on principle. It is important to know when to cut bait but it is not before you started to fish.

[Pirate Smile]

16. It wont come back. It will be a long time before another President tries but, as you can see,

a lot of people are perfectly happy to say they want that result.

[Laelth]

34. Not true.

The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Killing the bill gives the states the chance to work on this problem. Passing the bill will prevent state action on this issue.

California will probably pass single payer on its own in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The legislature has already passed the bill. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

Canada got its single-payer system one province at a time, and it looks like that's the only way it can happen in the United States.

I don't think the Federal Government is capable of reforming the system right now. If this bill is the best the Federal Government can do, then the Federal Government should do nothing. It's time to let the states try.

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

[Number23]

18. Jack Turner of Jack and Jill Politics (a political/cultural blog for blacks) asked the same question

"Say that Democrats vote down their own bill. When in this magical future are we supposed to get that more perfect bill? After 2010? 2015? 2020? This just doesn’t make much sense to me."

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/12/really-democrats-want-to-kill-a-democratic-party-platform-initiative/

Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, does not believe this bill should be killed either but dramatically improved.

"Few liberals speak about health care with the credibility of Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. His organization represents more than two million unionized workers, from janitors to nurses, who care about better health care because it’s an issue that affects them personally.

...But Stern doesn’t want to kill the Senate bill. He wants to improve it--and then, when that’s done, to start fixing the dysfunctional political system that produced it."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/andy-stern-dont-kill-the-bill-fix-it

[eridani]

19. Nothing stops us from revisiting Medicare, Medicaid and the drug "benefit"

If we just want to help a few extra people, expanding Medicare and Medicaid could be done without any new legislation. Ditto for eliminating the donut hole.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Oh, you know, just wait another fifteen years or so.

Nobody's going to touch health care with a ten foot pole if this bill doesn't pass.

[Ex Lurker]

22. I would buy that argument if this thing was an incremental improvement over what we have

but it makes the situation worse, not better.

[HughMoran]

23. ...when Hillary's bill comes back up

that's when.

You get one shot in your first year - it's do or die.

[wndycty]

26. Exactly

:kick:

[prolesunited]

27. Stop making sense

We need to abolish the insurance companies overnight and create thousands and thousands of more unemployed people. They will love us for that.

There can be no gradual transition. Dramatic change happens overnight, like civil rights. A bill was signed and everything was right with the world.

[Fumesucker]

32. Gradual change is better if you are moving in the right direction though

I think this bill moves in the wrong direction, more power to private, for profit insurance companies with the IRS as their enforcer.

Working class people are utterly terrified of the IRS, upper class people not so much.

[MH1]

28. Did you forget where you are?

This is DU: General Discussion. You are not allowed to make sense here.

[HughMoran]

29. Tell me about it.

Any practical thinking is treated like an affront to all that is good in the world.

[sendero]

30. The GOP contributed nothing to this bill..

.. so I don't know how you can claim it helps the GOP in any way.

The litmus test is going to be how the PUBLIC responds to this bill and who wins the spin campaign on what it in it.

[Vinca]

31. They can pass a bill through reconciliation -

open up the age restrictions on Medicare.

[Laelth]

33. Killing the bill gives the states the chance to work on this problem.

The status quo is better because it will ALLOW for states to address this issue themselves. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Passing the bill will prevent state action on this issue.

California will probably pass single payer on its own in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The legislature has already passed the bill. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

Canada got its single-payer system one province at a time, and it looks like that's the only way it can happen in the United States.

I don't think the Federal Government is capable of reforming the system right now. If this bill is the best the Federal Government can do, then the Federal Government should do nothing. It's time to let the states try.

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