Kill the Bill?

[AllentownJake]

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Pass a bill and send it to reconciliation.

We owe it to 50+ million Americans who will die without health care to do something besides give up.

[BlueIdaho]

Maybe we can send them to jail when they can't afford to buy

the mandated crapsurance they can't afford.

All hail JoeBamaCare!

[Ozymanithrax]

9. I expect misinformation from the Right.

I am astounded to see it from the left.

[BlueIdaho]

14. That's ok

I'm astounded to think that anyone really believes we can provide health care for 50 million poor through reconciliation.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. I prefer trying to do good over seeing them die...

Other people here are free to make their own choices.

[BlueIdaho]

25. Before you make yourself a saint

Ask yourself now much real good this bill will do. What are chances this whole thing will be gutted before it ever has a chance to take effect. When all is said and done this will be Pyhrric victory with a well publicized autograph session for the president and the sick and the poor will continue to die by the tens of thousands because the democratic party has forgotten how to lead on important issues.

[LooseWilly]

23. I have no health insurance... and I say Kill It. And Joe can filibuster a Conference Report too...

just as surely as he can filibuster the current Senate bill... so passing it in order to "fix it" in Conference Committee is actually no solution at all.

I'll die if that's what it takes... but I say kill this bill.

[VMI Dem]

2. Kill the bill.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Nopity.

Not even close.

[Richardo]

4. If your answer is 'kill it', explain yourself.

Try to take into account political reality as we know it on this planet.

[MercutioATC]

5. Kill it. Forget reconciliation. Start over.

The President and Congressional leadership are supposed to steer this stuff...especially when we hold both the White House and Congress.

They've failed miserably. They need to start over.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Kill the bill!

Start afresh in the House.

[MercutioATC]

10. Unfortunately, even if this was done, the same leadership is in place.

They'd no doubt just screw it up again.

[Zynx]

12. I have a serious question. What do you think public support would look like if you said:

"Gee, all of this was a lot of bullshit. Sorry to put you through all of that. We're going to try better now. Trust us!"

[MercutioATC]

16. I don't think most people are really following this.

...so I don't think there would be a discernible effect on "public support".

Your premise is sorta like justifying staying in Iraq because we can't admit we screwed up and lose "public support" .

[Zynx]

20. Not really.

The correct analogy would be if Bush was drumming up support for the Iraq war and then suddenly, right before we went in, he said, "Nah. This is a bad idea. Let's start picking on Syria." You would have seen some pretty dramatic moves in public opinion.

Believe me, a lot of people are following this, particularly the 36% of the voting age population that will vote next year. The majority would be pretty shocked after taking them through a six month process to say, "We really don't know what the hell we're doing. Let's start over. Trust us. We know what we're doing now." "Starting over" is just not a reasonable alternative. There is probably just about zero public appetite for that. It is the political equivalent of driving from Milwaukee to Miami and stopping in Orlando and saying, "You know, we can do better than Florida," and then trekking all the way over to San Diego.

[MercutioATC]

22. I disagree, but it's not going to happen anyway.

They're all (both Repubs and Dems) so out of touch and in the pockets of big business that they have no real desire for substantive change.

[jefferson_dem]

11. There are no do-overs.

This is it. Take it or leave it. I'll assume you choose the later.

[MercutioATC]

17. This isn't kickball.

They can do it over as many times as they need to.

[Zynx]

21. In theory yes. Practically no.

[uponit7771]

27. That's what the GOP wants, thx for letting your views be made known.

[Phx_Dem]

30. Don't kid yourself, there will be no startin over. And what good would it do anyway?

No one's opinions have changed. Once the bill is dead, it's dead forever or at least decades.

[DJ13]

6. Kill it

Maybe if they end up with egg on their faces now they will be desperate enough to get real reform passed in time to save their sorry asses by the midterms next year.

[timeforpeace]

8. There is no downside to starting over. The bill is all downside.

[ProSense]

13. Head or tails

Nelson or Stupak?

Can you guarantee the bill will be better?

[LooseWilly]

24. Hard to make it worse... KILL IT

[Laelth]

15. Kill the bill. It's worse than doing nothing. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[quakerboy]

19. Kill it now or fix it now

No putting off for later. No promises we will fix it later. Pass it right or don't pass it at all.

[timeforpeace]

26. K&R for more votes. C'mon people, this is a big deal! It was in all the papers!

[Phx_Dem]

28. If this bill dies, history will show it was the progressives who killed HCR.

Regardless of what the Blue Dogs or Lieberhole wanted or how they watered it down, we had a HCR bill with alot of good things in it and the progressives killed it. That will be their legacy, and deservedly so.

[closeupready]

31. What good things? Can you please list them? Serious request.

Thanks in advance.

[JVS]

34. Yeah right. Progressives walk into the alley and find centrists ripping a cat's eyes out...

and it's our fault when we have the cat put to sleep.

[closeupready]

29. Yes, if reconciliation is a strong possibility.

n/t

[Phx_Dem]

32. This bill does not qualifiy for reconcillation.

Reconcillation is a "budget" process which only addresses new spending. This bill does not qualify. A public option would qualify for reconcilliation by itself, but not with the res tof this bill, which would be stripped out in reconcillation. Per Ron Wyden and others.

[damonm]

33. not only no, but HELL no!

Is this bill perfect? No way in Hell.
Is it even very good? Not without a robust PO, it's not.

BUT-

Kill this bill, and you kill HCR dead, dead, DEAD for 50 years at a minimum.

Maybe 44,000 dead each of those years is worth it to you to get a perfect bill - it's not to me, and never will be.

For those of you who think we SHOULD kill this so we can get a better, name me ONE time where a bill has made it this far, been pulled back by proponents, and lived as a stronger version of itself.

You can't because it's never happened.

If you think it's a win for the Insurers, think again.

For them, "winning" means getting to do what they want, how they want, at whatever price they want, to whatever customers they choose, for the highest profit margin they can squeeze.
What they actually GET in this bill:
Required guaranteed issue of every insured with no underwriting requirements; minimum medical loss ratio of 85% (or 90%, depending); requirement to submit rate increases in advance with full justification; requirement to post detailed information about how premium dollars are spent on the Internet; requirement to cover claims without lifetime or annual caps on benefits; requirement to adjust focus from illness to wellness by covering preventive procedures 100%; and loss of the right to arbitrarily withdraw coverage from any insured at will right when the person needs them most; and best of all, limits on the differential between younger insureds and older ones.

They also get what they’ve resisted most for a very long time: regulation. Heavy, heavy regulation.

Yeah, sounds like a BIG win. :eyes: