Since Pelosi says she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate HCR bill, does

[gateley]

this bode well for those of us who were so disappointed with it? Do you think the House will come up with a more robust bill, PO, single payer, whatever, so when it DOES go back to the Senate, we don't have so much "off the table" at the starting point?

Do you consider this a good turn of events?

[demwing]

1. Possibly. It will all depend on the size of the fight in our dog.

How much do we want this thing?

[gateley]

5. I feel much more confident of the House than I do of the Senate. I think there

are a lot of fighters there -- including Pelosi.

[derby378]

2. It'll force the insurance companies to spend more money to fight this...

...which they really didn't want to do in the first place. They invested heavily in astroturf poutrage groups to sabotage townhall meetings and saturate the airwaves with anti-reform ads. But they can't keep doing it forever. Sooner or later, their coffers will be low, and then they're going to have to come to the table with hat in hand and pledge to be good corporate citizens.

Stare them down.

[county worker]

3. Yes I do think it is a good thing.

Since we can't get single payer or a public option, there is nothing to counter balance the bad parts of the bill. There would be no alternative available to us to being forced to pay into the coffers of the very people who are screwing up the medical system.

If there are any good parts of the bill, pass them as add ons to other bills.

Then the Dems should take lessons in how to govern and come back with a real public option or single payer!

[spanone]

4. i imagine it will be less 'robust' (i hate that word) and will bow to the repubs

[gateley]

9. I don't know -- we have such a majority in the House and a lot of fighters who

aren't afraid to publicly embrace single payer and public option. I think they're less likely to bow to the Repubs. Nancy has been pretty feisty. I'm hopeful that our starting point this time will be more, er, hearty. :7

I laughed at myself when I used "robust" in the OP. I thought, jeez, gateley, I can't believe you're actually typing that!

OOPS -- just this second glanced up at the TV to hear Peolsi say "we must always go where there is consensus". Now I'm unsure. Again. :crazy:

[WeDidIt]

6. The Senate doesn't have enough votes to pass anything

The GOP has a controlling minority of 41 votes to the Dems pitiful 59 votes.

[gateley]

10. But we can go the reconciliation route. The 60 votes is only needed to prevent

a filibuster, right? Let the motherfuckers filibuster 'til the cows come home.

[elocs]

19. Reconciliation is not going to result in any kind of great HCR.

It may get a bill passed, but it won't be anything spectacular.

Plus, after spending 8 months on HCR, how many more months is Congress going to devote to it?

[gateley]

20. I keep grasping... :-) nt

[DJ13]

7. Perhaps Pelosi is right, but Obama still wants (needs) "reform" to placate voters

He could just use Medicare to create his own PO with relative ease.

[gateley]

12. Agree on the Medicare, don't understand why he just doesn't do it. nt

[Rincewind]

8. Not good at all.

If the present bill fails, health care reform is dead. The choice is not between the current flawed bill and a much better bill, it's between this bill and no bill. Anyone in the House, or the Senate who tries to reform health care will be told "We tried that, and it was a disaster". The goppers and conservadems don't want reform to start with, and the others are scared of being associated with failure. If this attempt at reform fails, no one will try again for at least 10, probably 15 or 20 years. And in 9 1/2 years, I will either be on medicare, or dead because I don't have health insurance.

[gateley]

13. Man, what a nightmare. This should be so simple, it's the right thing to do. But

it's never simple when money and profit are involved. :grr:

[Political Heretic]

11. I won't feel good until we're passed the point of them trying to pass corporation-first shit

What, if anything, will they try to ram through on working families through reconciliation? You would think they would do something more in keeping with party platform if they are going to do it in a fashion that only requires 51 votes, but these days I don't think anyone should count on that.

I'll be happy when legislation that places the wants and whims of the financial elite ahead of the true needs of low-income and working class families is DEAD.

I had hoped that the House would agree to pass the Senate Bill on the condition that a second "patch" bill would be immediately passed through reconciliation, to expand and modify the Senate Bill, and that they house would be able to win concessions on some key issues to make the legislation potentially much, much better.

But that does not seem to be the way Democrats are going, imagine my shock.

[gateley]

14. I wonder why the House won't do what you mention, pass with the condition.

Seems like a logical action to me.

Sigh. I'm weary.

[Political Heretic]

15. My guess - and its just a guess - is that they couldn't get the promises needed

I'm guessing that there were irreconcilable differences between the Senate and House, so that the House couldn't be guaranteed to get certain issues address in any follow-up bill.

That's pure speculation and I have no information to back that up.

[gateley]

17. Makes sense, though -- your guess. If the had been able to secure a commitment,

that's probably what they would have done.

[Edweird]

16. Maybe. Or maybe it's code for "we haven't been bribed..er 'lobbied' enough yet".

Time will tell. If they suddenly and inexplicably drop their opposition.....

[elocs]

18. Obama must be presented with 1 bill to sign. One. Not a different House and Senate bill.

If the House only passed their previous bill with 5 votes to spare and 2 of those are now gone, from our perspective how would it ever come up with a better bill? It won't. There will be no public option if a bill goes to Obama to be signed.