I've been thinking - what if the GOP had played ball?

[Taverner]

As in - what if they said after Obama's inauguration "Well, let's see how it is working with him" and worked on the HCR, sneaking in as much pork as they can (nothing wrong with pork IMO) for their districts, putting up a fight on some of the issues, rather than the whole thing?

Do you think HRC would be worse? Do you think it would have been better?

[mdmc]

1. I think the bill would have been the same

but there would have been more red state bailouts..

[Oregone]

4. The fix for this structure has been in for some time

[BadgerKid]

7. Agree. Outright bailouts were declined by some.

Maybe they were too proud or stupid, I dunno. But if same had instead been part of pork, it would have been hailed as part of a good negotiation strategy.

[Mz Pip]

2. It would have been better received

I do believe so much of the opposition to HCR comes from the fact that people bought into the lies the GOP told about the bill. If the GOP had cooperated, people might actually see the reality rather than the spin.

[Oregone]

3. They didn't need to. The Democrats ran with a historically Republican plan

[subterranean]

5. I think it would have ended up about the same

except with more pork for Republicans. They might have been able to get some of their precious tort reform in there too.

[Taverner]

8. Yeah - they could have had their precious tort reform

But no - they played a "winner take all" strategy

And lost - big time

[sandnsea]

6. We would have fought them, instead of each other

And probably would have gotten a public option as a result.