Do you realize the Republicans are responsible for the bad parts of the bill?

[Kablooie]

If they had not filibustered the Senate bill would have passed with 51 votes.
Because 60 were needed it gave the corporate stooge senators disproportionate power. They could hold the bill hostage until it included their overlord's wishes. If only 51 were needed their votes would not have been essential.

Then when the house and senate bills were to be combined into a final bill, once again the filibuster forced them to take the senate bill. They couldn't include any of the house bill ideas because 60 votes would be needed once again. The house bill included a public option which had to be discarded.

So when conservatives complain about being forced to buy health insurance, it's their own damn fault. If they had let things follow the normal course of legislation it would have been a much more effective and balanced bill.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. The Senate Bill was written by Max Baucus

He claims to be a Democrat. Not that I agree with his claim, but that's who wrote this mandate shit.

[Oregone]

2. Republicans and the health insurance industry pretty much wrote the origins of the bill

Its the Democrats fault for running with it

[Turbineguy]

3. I thought that was the whole GOP Strategery

Put in parts to make it unworkable. All part of the "Break Government Doctrine".

[ProgressOnTheMove]

4. Exactly and that's why each GOP Senator should be opposed in the midterm with everything..

we have left. They are simply a cancerous party, no diplomatic way to express it. If we can even be 3 Senators over the 60 votes then the real repair work can begin. WIth the instant sucesses of this bill celebrated all through to November.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. Hi! Welcome to DU!

:eyes:

[nimvg]

7. A Bean Counter and Tax Specialist Friend Of Mine...

...back in my old stomping grounds of NE Ohio told me this is the Republican bill from the nineties. Gingrich apparently came up with the idea of mandates and subsidies a long time ago and Baucus signed his name to it. The bill itself has been around for almost twenty years.

I'm still not sure the damn thing is gonna hold up in court. If they sue on the basis that forcing someone to buy something they don't want is against the Constitution, I can tell you there are a number of liberal lawyers out there who agree.

[Kablooie]

8. But if one part of the bill is constitutional it doesn't mean other parts are.

So it only eliminates the mandatory buy in.
Which means the insurance companies won't have as many customers and won't have as big profits.
The rest of the bill will probably stand.

What the result would be I'm not sure but it wouldn't destroy the positive aspects of the law.