Why Do They Say If This HCR Bill Goes Down In Defeat That It Will Be Years Before It Comes Up Again?

[global1]

I don't understand that. If the Dems are so intent on getting some legislation on HCR through - why wouldn't they just bring it up again in the next Congress and continue to push it. Wear down the opposition. Make the big pharma and big insurance keep coming up with more and more bucks to fund its opposition. Their pockets can't be that deep that they can keep on fighting this.

I just don't buy the excuse that it might be a decade before HCR comes up again. If that is so - its because they don't want it and are using that as an excuse.

If they truly want HCR - they would continually fight for it until it passed.

[TwilightGardener]

1. The next Congress is going to be more amenable to

HCR than THIS (Dem-controlled) Congress? Really?

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. And the next Congress will lose Dem seats because why?

[Vincardog]

14. Because the Dems did not fight for the people and pass meaningful HCR

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Yep.

[treestar]

43. So their punishment is a Republican Congress

Real logical. That'll punish the Dems all right. Except the Republican congress will certainly do nothing and even try to repeal Medicaid. Take that Dems!

[Vincardog]

46. MAybe we can replace the Corporate Dems with real ones. The question was WHY would Democrats lose

seats? The answer is because they did not fight for us. That is a call to be more progressive not a call to elect REpigLICKERS. Take your reactionary thinking somewhere else

[TwilightGardener]

19. Have no idea, but why assume it'll be better?

Are there indications that Dems will pick up seats and Blue Dogs will become less powerful?

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. None at all. This Congress was our best shot, and they let us down.

[Mari333]

2. Bush rammed through every piece of legislation he wanted to

if this White House and Congress WANTED to, they could pass a decent HCR bill in no time flat.
they are certainly showing me who they represent, and it isnt the people of the USA

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. +1000

[Vincardog]

16. +1

[napi21]

22. I don't think so. Bush got away with it for 2 reasons.

1. Pubs always stick together for their PARTY, sometimes because they are threatened, and sometimes that's just the way they operate.

3. The Pubs are by nature agressive, mean & nasty, where Dems usually aren't. Dems threatened to fillabuster, but never really did. Remember the, what was it...Gang off 8?

[Marr]

33. Very true. From the very beginning of this process, it was clear

that the party leadership was doing everything in it's power to neuter HCR. They wanted a corporate bonanza that they could "call" healthcare reform, that's all. They seem to think their base is about as stupid and gullible as the right wing base.

[ieoeja]

34. But Bush had a conservative majority in both houses.

And there is still a conservative majority in both houses.

[CrispyQ]

40. Harr!

:spray:

[treestar]

44. Enough with this one

The Dem party covers a much larger spectrum. It is a much bigger tent. No lockstep.

[Pisces]

3. History should be your first clue. Why did it take them so long after the defeat with Clinton?

In 2010 there will be a shift of power in the House and Senate, especially since the majority of the so called Dems on this board will be sitting out. We Dems love to self sabotage ourselves.
Oh well the bill isn't perfect, I guess we should kill it.

[T Wolf]

17. 1) It took them so long because they really do not want to change the system they PROFIT

so much from.

2) We (non-pol) Democrats are not doing the sabotaging - it is the un-Dems in Congress and the White House who are responsible for the negative outcome. It is they/them who will be responsible if/when they lose power in 2010, not us. But is is us who will suffer the consequences. Most of them will still have their cushy jobs, expense accounts, and corporate sponsors to cushion their trip through life.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. It's a clumsily used scare tactic used by the apoligists for a bad bill.

And, it's receiving a "no sale" response from the left.

[HuckleB]

31. No, it's an honest look at history and the current political climate.

Try again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. So, they're using their past failures to justify not pursuing it?

Kinda like a plumber who says, "Well, I fucked up your toilet instead of repairing it and I'll just fuck it up some more if I try repairing it again."

In that case it's time to fire the plumber and hire one that can/will do the job.

[HuckleB]

36. Say what?

Way to spin from saying to saying another?

It is being pursued. It's not what I want. I want single payer. But I also don't want to continue down the same path we're on because what we've got now isn't what it should be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. The "direction" they're pursuing it is little more than the status quo.

And, what's to prevent them from pursuing it by starting over?

[truedelphi]

42. + 1 n/t

[rucky]

5. Why do they say we can't change it after it passes?

Fear tactics are coming from both sides & somewhere in the middle is the truth.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. We could change it, but will we? What's the track record for amending

crappy legislation anyway?

[rucky]

25. Medicare evolved through amending it over time.

(a little too much with the last set of "reforms")

What's the track record for passing meaningful healthcare reform from scratch?

Personally, I don't think we'll get anything meaningful either way. We all have to decide is a sick, lame bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We have more fears than facts to go on, and not alot of trust in the decision makers, so I respect the "kill it" standpoint as much as the "pass it". Both options suck, so it's pretty much a wash.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. I say fix it then pass it, as you may have noted in my sigline. :^)

[Fire1]

32. You're right, rucky. But I'd rather take my chances with the

crappy bird in the hand. Historically, once it's gone, it's dead and no other president is going to touch it. At least not in my life time.

[laughingliberal]

20. Hmmm. Because the people with the most power will already have the bill they want?

do I win?

[Parker CA]

8. "Their pockets can't be that deep that they can keep on fighting this." Yes, they can.

[leveymg]

9. They'll just reintroduce a bill without all the compromises in January and do Reconciliation

We'll have a decent HCR Bill out of the Senate by March with 51 or 52 votes. That'll work for me.

[SPedigrees]

29. I hope you're right. nt

[Vincardog]

11. If they truly want HCR - they would have fought for it until it passed.

[valerief]

12. They say that, because they can. They'll just have to find another way to

shovel money to insurance companies if this doesn't pass.

We don't matter.

[laughingliberal]

13. One reason and one alone: Cowardice. A trait found in abundance in the political class.

Generally defined as a failure to act in the face of fear. Big change from the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

[QC]

18. Scare tactics, kinda like the assertion that the country will go bankrupt

if this abomination does not pass.

[tritsofme]

23. This is likely the high water mark of Democratic power in Congress.

There is a realistic possibility of a Republican majority in the House after next year, after that there is no chance of any type of HCR passing.

[wryter2000]

24. Every time it's been beaten down it didn't come back

That's the history.

However, I think Howard Dean may be right. This time things are too desperate for it not to come up again soon.

As to our huge majority...we don't need a huge majority for budget reconcilliation.

[SPedigrees]

27. The big pharma/big insurance are that deep. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

28. Same shit, different bill.

"Pass the PATRIOT Act this second or America will be nuked!"

"Pass TARP -- Thank God it passed! -- this second or the economy will collapse!"

"Pass this bill this second or there won't be any health care for years!"

When they want people to sign something without looking, it's always life or death, it's always down to seconds left to save ourselves.

In the first two examples, republicans were pulling that shit on us.

In the latest example ... well, they're really still republicans.

[Zen Democrat]

30. Because it will toxic for a few years. And the Dems will lose seats in both houses next year.

People don't seem to get the basic deal here. Republicans vote the way they are told. I've heard Republican Senators make speeches opposing a bill, but then fall in line when it's time to vote. They just don't veer off into conscience when the roll is called. Ronald Reagan decreed that Republicans never speak ill of each other, and vote as a bloc at the behest of Wall Street/Big Business.

Democrats have ALWAYS been free-agents and vote accordingly. Just like Will Rogers said in the 1920's, "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." Nothing's changed.

If the Republicans had 60 votes, there's no telling what would happen to this country, but it would be unstoppable. The Dems have 58 + 2 independents, and it's like herding cats. And the reason is ... Democrats are free-thinkers and exercise independent votes of conscience (unless, of course, they are voting at the instruction of their lobbyist benefactors). The answer is to radicalize the Blue Dogs or replace them with True Progressives. The Democrats have a left and a middle and a right. The Republicans have a right and a far right and the fascists - but they all vote the same.

[HughMoran]

38. So the 60 years we've been fighting for it doesn't carry any weight?

How about the fact that Dems won't even be close to the 60 vote cloture requirement and will have many less Dems in the House - does that mean anything to you? You seem like you're not very old as those of us who've been alive around 50 years see things differently.

[debbierlus]

39. It will come up again soon - just a insurance industry bailout bill talking point

[LoZoccolo]

41. Because that's what happened last time. n/t

[mddem9850]

45. at this rate we'll have UHC in 100 years

[FiveGoodMen]

47. At this rate, we may no longer be a nation in 100 years