Do you think health care reform will pass?

[zoony]

This bill continues to be sold very poorly to the American people.

Obama has displayed extremely poor leadership throughout the entire process. It is a shame.

....

[twa]

This bill continues to be sold very poorly to the American people.

Obama has displayed extremely poor leadership throughout the entire process. It is a shame.

....

Is it the messenger or the message though?

If the bill is a POS like it appears to me would leadership and a better sales job be a improvement?

A good bill would almost sell itself if reform is done right.

[zoony]

Is it the messenger or the message though?

It is both- both a function of poor leadership.

It is a bad bill because it the public was never sold on the idea. And now the public isn't sold on the idea because it is a bad bill.

So choose

.....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Can you explain why it's bad? I'm not patronizing, I just really want to know what will change with this bill.

[81artmonk]

I pray it doesn't. I personally don't think it will. If they had the votes it would have been done long time ago. I don't think they have enough of their own party to agree to it. They all know it's political suicide.

[Kilmer17]

I think it will pass.

And then I think the Dems will pay for it by losing both Houses in the fall.

And then the GOP will use reconcilliation to pass everything they want from this point going forward, the 60 vote "rule" will cease to exist.

On that note, the Left like to say that the GOP used reconcilliation before, as if that matters. The reality is that congress has used it before. They used it for the purpose in which it was created. And when it was used, it still got more than 60 votes. And was used for specific budget measures (as intended).

Using it now to CIRCUMVENT the 60 vote rule, and for reasons outside of budgetary items, is what is disturbing to the majority of Americans. They're going to use it. And then whine when the GOP uses it in the same manner for the rest of time.

[81artmonk]

This bill continues to be sold very poorly to the American people.

Obama has displayed extremely poor leadership throughout the entire process. It is a shame.

....

I agree with that statement. However I would add, IMO they are keeping the details from us as they know we would dislike it even more if we did.

No one from the pres to the dems are out there talking specifically about any part of this bill. Most of the process has been kept from cspan. If anyone does talk about it, it's in vague generalities.

[DjTj]

It is both- both a function of poor leadership.

It is a bad bill because it the public was never sold on the idea. And now the public isn't sold on the idea because it is a bad bill.

I don't know if there was ever any such thing as "the idea." Many politicians had many different ideas on health care (and Obama himself never really had his own idea). I think Obama was hoping that Congress would develop some kind of cohesive plan, but they could not all agree on a single "idea" to rally around. The final bill is really just bits and pieces that take a few baby-steps towards reform.

Obama's mistake was trying to tackle health care first, because health care is something that is important to a lot of Democrats, but never seemed that important to him. From the start, this was not going to be an issue that he could own. It might have been good to have another leader on the issue like Daschle, or Hillary, or Ted Kennedy, but they became unavailable for various different reasons.

That said, I think it will pass. Baby steps.

[zoony]

I don't know if there was ever any such thing as "the idea." Many politicians had many different ideas on health care (and Obama himself never really had his own idea). I think Obama was hoping that Congress would develop some kind of cohesive plan,

And that's where the poor leadership part came in.

Voters wanted health care reform. They don't want this piece of ****.

....

[RememberOsaka]

As a small business owner I would welcome a plan that allowed other small business owners to band together and give us the buying power of large corporations.

Close to 40 million Americans don't have health insurance and less than 50% of small business owners with less than 10 employees offer any kind of coverage period. Those that do offer coverage saw an average premium increase of 20% last year alone.

I formed my own small group thru CareFirst and I pay over $1000/month just for my family. I also contribute almost 70% of the cost of coverage for my employees as a benefit. The monthly check that I send is enough to make one's head spin.

[DjTj]

I think it will pass.

And then I think the Dems will pay for it by losing both Houses in the fall.

And then the GOP will use reconcilliation to pass everything they want from this point going forward, the 60 vote "rule" will cease to exist.

Reconciliation is only available in the case where the Senate has already reached the 60-vote mark on an original bill, the House agrees substantially with that bill, and the Senate needs to approve the conference committee bill. That is a pretty rare circumstance, and unless the GOP gets a 60-vote majority that is lost in a special election between the bill passing the Senate and the bill coming our of conference committee, this scenario is not going to be repeated.

...but it will certainly be used as an excuse for other crazy parliamentary maneuvers.

And that's where the poor leadership part came in.

Voters wanted health care reform. They don't want this piece of ****.

Well, the thing is, it's not a piece of ****. It really doesn't include any of the things that Republicans have been ranting about. It's a compromise bill that expands coverage to more of the uninsured, lays the groundwork for future reform, but doesn't really change that much about the current system. That is basically what the voters wanted. They were pretty adamant against government takeovers and whatnot, so all that public option stuff was taken out of the bill.

[Kilmer17]

Reconciliation is only available in the case where the Senate has already reached the 60-vote mark on an original bill, the House agrees substantially with that bill, and the Senate needs to approve the conference committee bill. That is a pretty rare circumstance, and unless the GOP gets a 60-vote majority that is lost in a special election between the bill passing the Senate and the bill coming our of conference committee, this scenario is not going to be repeated.

...but it will certainly be used as an excuse for other crazy parliamentary maneuvers.

Well, the thing is, it's not a piece of ****. It really doesn't include any of the things that Republicans have been ranting about. It's a compromise bill that expands coverage to more of the uninsured, lays the groundwork for future reform, but doesn't really change that much about the current system. That is basically what the voters wanted. They were pretty adamant against government takeovers and whatnot, so all that public option stuff was taken out of the bill.

Reconcilliation was passed as a way to streamline budgetary issues, not to circumvent rules. If they use it for this purpose, you can guarentee that the GOP will use it for similar purposes as well as even more out of line purposes.

[DjTj]

Reconcilliation was passed as a way to streamline budgetary issues, not to circumvent rules. If they use it for this purpose, you can guarentee that the GOP will use it for similar purposes as well as even more out of line purposes.

No they won't. At least not very often ... It's a very rare circumstance that reconciliation is even needed (only when the House and Senate need to reconcile their bills and the super-majority that supported the Senate bill no longer supports joint bill).

I am pretty confident that after the Republicans take over Congress, the first crazy parliamentary maneuver won't be reconciliation. It will be something else that we've never even heard of, but the Republicans will point to reconciliation as their justification for it.

[Kilmer17]

No they won't. At least not very often ... It's a very rare circumstance that reconciliation is even needed (only when the House and Senate need to reconcile their bills and the super-majority that supported the Senate bill no longer supports joint bill).

I am pretty confident that after the Republicans take over Congress, the first crazy parliamentary maneuver won't be reconciliation. It will be something else that we've never even heard of, but the Republicans will point to reconciliation as their justification for it.

I agree its a rare circumstance. And this is nowhere close to being an appropriate one.

And I also agree, the GOP will go full force into finding ways to cicumvent rules going forward. Once the genie is out, it's not going back in.

[Fergasun]

I don't think voters wanted health care reform.

The voters wanted hope and change, not more of the same.

The problem is that we have a President, and we have Congress and by design they are supposed to be independent of each other, even though the parties have essentially bridged some of the gap.

As much as Obama wants to he can't force people to accept a bad bill.

The GOP has done a great job with their message (which is exactly why we have an opposition party). Look at McConnell and Boehner, and then tell me if it is the message or the messenger? Is the American electorate smarter than we look? We are buying the fact that this is a government takeover of the health care system, that government generally screws things up and adds costs, that we don't want government buerocrats (sp), and that this bill is going to fundamentally change America.

Like I said above, I'd welcome two radical plans. The ultra-free-market plan (don't allow health providers to charge different prices to different people, allow competition between state lines, allow anyone in a state to buy into any plan offered in that state), or the ultra-European single payer system. Both of those plans would be radical changes in how we deliver health care.

Quite honestly I think our current health care system is a hindrance to innovation and American productivity. People are afraid to quit safe jobs and follow their dreams because of the risks and costs of having to insure their family on their own. Health care costs have spiraled. People want to say that "health care isn't a right", okay then, make the health care industry competitive at least. If there were forces that worked to keep water prices high and unaffordable and people felt they had to stay with large employers and intentionally went to jobs in order to secure water, would we hear the argument that "water is not a right". Is our interstate highway system "a right"? No, its not, but we recognize it as an asset that brings benefits to the country. In the same way I think a Euro-style government-run health care system would help; but so too would the ultra-free-market competitive forces health care system as well. We have none of these at the moment nor have I heard the debate even framed in the manner I have framed it. Additionally there is the problem with the deficit and federal spending as well which complicates things.

Health insurance companies and employers are barriers to reforming these aspect (employers doubly so as if people didn't have to worry as much about health care they could start up competitive businesses). Health insurance companies would rather not have free-market pressure to compete against.

Quite honestly I think the Federal government has enough on its plate and has stuck its hand in too many places it shouldn't belong, so of course I prefer the free market plan. I can't tell you what the new health care plan does, but essentially I think it creates a public-version of the FEHB that people can buy into. It also provides subsidy's to poor people and forces everyone to buy a health care plan. I'm not sure if those subsidy's are more or less than current government spending, but I believe it probably expands a little bit who is eligible for government subsidies. I think we start paying taxes and other fees to pay for this health care nearly immediately, but the plans don't roll out until 2014 (why can't they take this approach with immigration reform... ouch another third rail!).

I'm not sure why people are surprised or shocked by GOP opposition. It's exactly what we want the second party to do in the two-party system. I think its clear the Democrats should've accepted the Massachusetts election as an excuse to pass a smaller bi-partisan bill. Could've been done last month.

[Baculus]

Not that twa can't speak for himself, but I think it's hilarious for you to accuse him of using "Fox News/GOP" talking points, by using ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/Democrat talking points.

This is a bad bill. Just ask Howard Dean.

Unfortunately, it'll probably pass, and give the term, cluster****, increased comedic value.

These aren't ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/Democrat "talking points" -- these are details FROM THE BILL(S) and the same ones I have been using for the past year. See, unlike Fox News, all those stations you mentioned actually report on the health care bill as opposed to Republican talking points.

Do I need to whip out the Daily Show compilation of the "cram it/ram it/jam it" talking points of GOP adherents?

Actually, Howard Dean now supports the reform, but, as of right now, we still do not know how the final reconciled bill will look like between the House and Senate version.

You know what is a true cluster****? please read the rules on profanity filters The current health care situation, where thousands of Americans die or suffer with no coverage, and where insurance premiums have doubled in a year (and where insurers are trying to raise rates by more than 30% in some states). Where Americans lose their homes due to health costs, and an estimated 750,000 Americans visit foreign country for less-expensive health care.

Yeah -- the status quo sure is a good thing here in the U.S.

[Predicto]

I have no idea if it is going to pass.

I do know this. If there is a vote formally scheduled, it will pass. Pelosi has never lost a vote. If she doesn't have the votes lined up, she doesn't put the matter up.

So I guess we will know then.

[Baculus]

This is a long reply, so bear with me.

I don't think voters wanted health care reform.

Of course voters wanted reform. Democrats ran on a platform of health care reform.

The voters wanted hope and change, not more of the same.

Exactly. Part of this "hope and change" includes reform. Staying the course with the current health care system is not part of that.

As much as Obama wants to he can't force people to accept a bad bill.

No one is "forcing" the people to accept a bad bill. This is a Republic. Democrats were voted into office health care reform as part of the political plank. Both the House and Senate bills were voted with a majority.

The GOP has done a great job with their message (which is exactly why we have an opposition party). Look at McConnell and Boehner, and then tell me if it is the message or the messenger?

Oh, you mean the "Democrats want to take over health care in a socialist, government takeover, enact rationing and death panels, kill grandma, in a unprecedented use of reconciliation?" THAT message?

Other than that, the GOP have NO message. Only scare tactics. Aided and and abetted by an entire network in Fox News.

Is the American electorate smarter than we look? We are buying the fact that this is a government takeover of the health care system . . .

This is NOT a government "take-over" of the US health care system. That is a totally, 100% bogus and disingenuous piece of propaganda that people, such as you, have bought, hook, line, and sinker. You have exhibited exactly what I was talking about with the GOP fear mongering. To the degree that people automatically repeat this myth as if it were fact.

BTW, this is one of the GOP talking points I mentioned.

A "takeover" would be socializing the system, such as TRICARE (the military health care system, which members of Congress, such as John McCain, have used) or the Indian Health Services (which Tripp Palin, Sarah Palin's grandson, uses as well. Irony of ironies.). Regulation is NOT a "take-over," just like regulation food and drugs is NOT a takeover of the food and drug industries.

This whole "government takeover" is a manufactured line of attack. It is the same line of attack used against Medicare during the 60s, with the fear mongering that it would lead to a "socialist dictatorship," as claimed by Ronald Reagan. Of course, a decade and a half later, he was suddenly in support of Medicare, just like, in a decade and a half, if reform passes and works, Republicans will claim they were in support these Democratic bills all along.

" . . . that government generally screws things up and adds costs, that we don't want government buerocrats (sp), and that this bill is going to fundamentally change America."

Private health insurers have already screwed things up to a degree. That is why health care premiums have doubled in a decade. BTW, this isn't all the health insurers faults -- the costs of health care provisioning have been rising as well.

As far as the government is concerned, let me ask you this: Did you drive on a public road as of today? Use any public utilities? What about the DOD developed ARPANET, which lead to the Internet we're both using? Fly on any government-regulated airlines recently?

Really -- the list of US government successes is long, but it is funny how people become suddenly "anti-American" when it comes to health care. If you don't trust the government, you better live like the Unibomber or move to another country.

In the past, I have been as anti-government as anyone, and I am a bit of a anarchist/left libertarian and don't wholly trust the government, either. But that doesn't mean I trust a private industry whose aim is to squeeze a profit out of my well-being as well. I trust them even LESS than the government.

As least government-run facilities can be regulated by We the People, as opposed to a private industry.

Like I said above, I'd welcome two radical plans. The ultra-free-market plan (don't allow health providers to charge different prices to different people, allow competition between state lines, allow anyone in a state to buy into any plan offered in that state), or the ultra-European single payer system. Both of those plans would be radical changes in how we deliver health care.

Two points:

1. The Democratic bills will increase competition. How? By the exchange, which will allow more choices.

Here is the kicker: We currently LACK competition and choice in the current system. Why? Most of the markets in the US are served by two or three large insurance companies. This is one reason why the anti-trust exemptions for insurers was recently killed by the House.

The health insurance reform will allow for greater choice in the market. Incidentally, this is the same system that members of Congress (and US federal employees) use. But apparently what is good enough for them isn't good enough for the rest of us.

2. A single-payer system (which I support) is closer to a "take over" than the current Democratic reform effort. In light of your previous words, I am a bit interested by your chance in attitude.

Quite honestly I think our current health care system is a hindrance to innovation and American productivity.[/'quote]

I totally agree with this stance.

People are afraid to quit safe jobs and follow their dreams because of the risks and costs of having to insure their family on their own.

The Democratic bill addresses this issue. COBRA addresses this as well (to a degree), and it must be noted that COBRA was passed with reconciliation. (Hence the name, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.)

Health care costs have spiraled. People want to say that "health care isn't a right", okay then, make the health care industry competitive at least. If there were forces that worked to keep water prices high and unaffordable and people felt they had to stay with large employers and intentionally went to jobs in order to secure water, would we hear the argument that "water is not a right". Is our interstate highway system "a right"? No, its not, but we recognize it as an asset that brings benefits to the country. In the same way I think a Euro-style government-run health care system would help; but so too would the ultra-free-market competitive forces health care system as well. We have none of these at the moment nor have I heard the debate even framed in the manner I have framed it. Additionally there is the problem with the deficit and federal spending as well which complicates things.

An excellent paragraph. Considering what you just said, I am wondering why the first part of your post is so "anti-Democratic" reform? It seems as if what you feel doesn't jibe with the propaganda that has been fed to the American public.

This demonstrates a key fact: When Americans are polled on individual parts of the Democratic bills, they are for it. When they are polled on the idea that "health care reform will take over and ration the industry." they are against it.

Is it little wonder that Americans are "against reform," until they are informed to what it actually entails?

Health insurance companies and employers are barriers to reforming these aspect (employers doubly so as if people didn't have to worry as much about health care they could start up competitive businesses). Health insurance companies would rather not have free-market pressure to compete against.

I agree. Health care companies are simply a middleman between the patient and the doctor.

Quite honestly I think the Federal government has enough on its plate and has stuck its hand in too many places it shouldn't belong, so of course I prefer the free market plan. I can't tell you what the new health care plan does, but essentially I think it creates a public-version of the FEHB that people can buy into.

Yes, that is basically the case. The FEHB also uses an exchange for the health insurance choice. This is created in the House and/or Senate bills.

BTW, Massachusetts also has an exchange, an idea that has been previously supported by Republicans (until now).

It also provides subsidy's to poor people and forces everyone to buy a health care plan. I'm not sure if those subsidy's are more or less than current government spending, but I believe it probably expands a little bit who is eligible for government subsidies. I think we start paying taxes and other fees to pay for this health care nearly immediately, but the plans don't roll out until 2014 (why can't they take this approach with immigration reform... ouch another third rail!).

You are correct in the first part of the paragraph, but the average person will have no taxes raised to pay for the Democratic bill(s).

I'm not sure why people are surprised or shocked by GOP opposition. It's exactly what we want the second party to do in the two-party system.

Well, we shouldn't be shocked, since the GOP have been opposing reform since the 30s, when they also said reform is "socialistic." Ironically, though, Theodore Roosevelt was the first person to run on a platform of health care reform.

I think its clear the Democrats should've accepted the Massachusetts election as an excuse to pass a smaller bi-partisan bill. Could've been done last month.

The Massachusetts election was NOT a mandate against national health care reform. Why? Because the citizens of that state already HAVE a system much like the so-called "ObamaCare."

The Republicans have already made this much clear: They want to defeat reform, period. They want to make this issue "Obama's Waterloo," which is what they have literally said. Their position is simple: The US has the greatest health care system in the world and does not need reform.

If this reform effort dies, the GOP will do nothing to further this issue.

[Baculus]

I agree with that statement. However I would add, IMO they are keeping the details from us as they know we would dislike it even more if we did.

What? That is not true at all. The details of the health care bills have been public for months.

Why do you have the opinion that the details have been "kept from us"?

No one from the pres to the dems are out there talking specifically about any part of this bill. Most of the process has been kept from cspan. If anyone does talk about it, it's in vague generalities.

Rubbish. The Press and Democrats have been talking about details for MONTHS. They talked about details at the health care summit, which you apparently did not watch.

Just because you refuse to listen doesn't mean no one is talking.

OK, so what details do you want to know?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm just a spectator in this, but nice reply Baculus.

[Baculus]

Reconcilliation was passed as a way to streamline budgetary issues, not to circumvent rules. If they use it for this purpose, you can guarentee that the GOP will use it for similar purposes as well as even more out of line purposes.

Reconciliation, if used by the Democrats on the health care reform, is not "circumventing the rules." Another totally false, rubbishy GOP line of attack.

The GOP have supported reconciliation in the 17 out of 22 times it has been used.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0210/GOP_backed_17_of_22_reconciliation_bills_passed_since_80.htm

Is there a single GOP talking point that is not a distortion and misrepresentation?

[Baculus]

I'm just a spectator in this, but nice reply Baculus.

Thank you!

[Baculus]

I think it will pass.

And then I think the Dems will pay for it by losing both Houses in the fall.

If GOP fear mongering does not come to fruition, then this may not happen.

And then the GOP will use reconcilliation to pass everything they want from this point going forward, the 60 vote "rule" will cease to exist.

Well, the GOP used it for major legislation during this last decade -- what are you suddenly protesting? What's good for the goose ain't good for the gander?

Why is that? When the Republicans used it for a $1.2 trillion dollar tax cut, where were the conservative protests?

All in all, though, I doubt if the Democrats will do that, though the GOP are doing all they can to stall Democratic legislation, no matter how small or minor.

On that note, the Left like to say that the GOP used reconcilliation before, as if that matters.

Are you serious? So, it doesn't matter if the GOP have previously supported it . . . because the Democrats want to use it? How does that make any sense.

"We can use it, but you can't!"

This makes no sense at all. Unless you are a Republican, of course.

The reality is that congress has used it before.

Welcome to reality!

They used it for the purpose in which it was created. And when it was used, it still got more than 60 votes.

Totally untrue. As an example, one of the last times it was used the GOP only had fifty votes, with Dick Cheney being the 51st deciding vote.

And was used for specific budget measures (as intended).

Which is one of reasons why the Democrats are using it. I am not sure if you realize it, but the health care bill is budgetary in nature as well.

Using it now to CIRCUMVENT the 60 vote rule, and for reasons outside of budgetary items, is what is disturbing to the majority of Americans. They're going to use it. And then whine when the GOP uses it in the same manner for the rest of time.

Oh shessh.

"We can use it, but you can't!"

It's too late to "whine," because the GOP have ALREADY used it on a number of occasions.

Here is the thing: Over the past few years, I warned Republicans on this board that the Republican Congressional tactics can and will be used against them. Maybe if you don't like reconciliation you should have protested in the past. Otherwise, it now sounds like sour grapes.

[Ax]

These aren't ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/Democrat "talking points" -- these are details FROM THE BILL(S) and the same ones I have been using for the past year. See, unlike Fox News, all those stations you mentioned actually report on the health care bill as opposed to Republican talking points.

So then, do you agree with the President, that the American people are just too stupid to know what's good for them? If all those news outlets just report the facts, and their combined numbers are likely greater than Fox's, how come so many are against it? Those outlets sold the country on Obama. Why can't they sell this?

Do I need to whip out the Daily Show compilation of the "cram it/ram it/jam it" talking points of GOP adherents?

Getting your politics from a comedy show, is akin to getting your foreign policy ideas from eating at the International House of Pancakes.

Actually, Howard Dean now supports the reform,

Ah yes. He was against it before he was for it. What will he be tomorrow?

but, as of right now, we still do not know how the final reconciled bill will look between the House and Senate version.

But they should vote for it anyway?

You know what is a true clusterf*ck? The current health care situation, where thousands of Americans die or suffer with no coverage, and where insurance premiums have doubled in a year (and where insurers are trying to raise rates by more than 30% in some states). Where Americans lose their homes due to health costs, and an estimated 750,000 Americans visit foreign country for less-expensive health care.

You obviously believe this bill, whatever it winds up being, will make things better. I'm happy for you. But I don't share your optimism. I think most of the problems will still exist, and more will be created. And it will all cost a truckload of money.

Creating jobs, right now, will improve more peoples ability to afford healthcare than anything a bunch of politicians can do under the guise of "healthcare reform". That's what they need to work on, first and foremost.

[zoony]

Getting your politics from a comedy show, is akin to getting your foreign policy ideas from eating at the International House of Pancakes.

And Baculus- please let the profanity filters do their jobs. Thank you.