If passing the health care bill costs us the majority, I'd still make that same decision.

[Cant trust em]

We barely squeaked it by with a huge majority in both houses of Congress. When else will we have the numbers to get that kind of thing done?

[earthside]

1. If we got ...

... the public option or single payer, I'd agree.

But, unfortunately this law is not worth losing the majority.

[dkf]

2. Not me. I'd rather have jobs and less people in poverty.

[BzaDem]

6. Because of course that was the choice. Snowe would have been happy to sign onto a trillion stimulus

after the 700 billion one, if only we stopped healthcare. Riiiiiight.

[dkf]

7. Hey they worked through healthcare and it took ages.

But they could have and should have done the things they are looking at now.

[BzaDem]

8. The things they are looking at now won't pass now and they wouldn't have passed then.

What Democrats take "ages" to work through depends on what is politically feasible. Not the other way around. Something doesn't become politically feasible in a given environment just because people work "ages" on it.

And that doesn't even take into the account that the things proposed Obama will barely effect hiring at all (and not in any measurable way). To actually change the unemployment rate, we would need another stimulus on the order of a trillion dollars. Ben Nelson won't even vote for unemployment extensions that cost 30 billion.

The argument that there is somehow a tradeoff between healthcare and jobs is just complete nonsense.

[metapunditedgy]

3. The tragic irony is, of course, that a *stronger* bill would have been *favorably*

received by voters across America. Despite what you may have heard, Americans (even many Republicans!) strongly supported a competitive public option in polls.

The only people opposed to a stronger bill were the ones who mattered, the folks with big money interests.

[MadHound]

4. Why?

Without the public option and effective price regulation, we're all going to be paying through the nose. It's already started.

The price of passing such a minimal bill was far too high in many different ways.

[area51]

5. Yes.

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, and bankrupts people. Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

[BzaDem]

9. It is amazing how many people here think a bill does not solve any problems unless it uses their

preferred solution.

The truth is, some people pay much more through the nose than others, depending on their health status. That problem will be fixed in 2014. People under 400% of FPL will not need to pay more than 10% of their income on premiums for guaranteed-benefit, minimum actuarial-value policies. The idea that this is somehow a "minimal bill" is bogus and should not be taken seriously.