To those who want to "kill the bill", I'll re-ask my question...

[brooklynite]

...since nobody answered when I asked last week.

Exactly how will you advance a health card bill that is to your liking with the same members of the Congress in office (and facing upcoming elections), and the same united opposition from the Republicans (requiring the support of Nelson, Lieberman et al) and achieve a better result? I'd honestly like to know.

And, for those who will offer up "Reconciliation", please explain why the Democrats who didn't support that move this year will support it next year?

[NYC_SKP]

1. You are correct, the current congress prevents our getting much more.

A few people are just in denial, blind denial.

I can think of no other explanation.

[FBaggins]

2. You assume that nothing will change

In politics, that's unrealistic.

[brooklynite]

3. And you assume that it will in your favor...

...I'd like to understand the basis for that optimism.

[Pithlet]

5. Okay. How do you change it?

I'm another one who's reluctant to jump on the kill the bill wagon. I keep looking at all the posts trying to find the meat of the matter. The reason why I should join that fight. I haven't been able to find it either. So I see this OP and I'm interested in the answers myself.

[still_one]

6. It won't change this year, and if we lose Byrd, we may not have enough to prevent

a filibuster next year

[still_one]

4. all you need to do is put "pressure" on them, and they change their mind. The only problem is, why

would they change their mind. lieberman has said he will NOT vote for any bill that had a public option, and that is in spite of the majority of people in Connecticut wanting a public option. So if he won't even abide by his constiuents, I don't see what kind of "pressure" will make him change his mind

Both nelson and lincoln said they would NOT support a public option, and pressure was applied to them, and there respective states were given something just to get their vote on a bill without a public option. Both have said they would NOT vote for the bill if the public option was put back in. Why do we think they don't mean what they say?

[Uncle Joe]

9. By your own post, Lieberman is ripe for being primaried, maybe not in 2010 but when his term ends.

Candidate Obama had public option on his 2008 website and he was elected with a mandate of change.

I would think if the public option or Medicare for every American from the cradle to the grave is popular with a majority of the American People, having the pressure to pass such thing would be magnified during an election year.

[pnwmom]

13. Lieberman isn't even close to the end of his term. He's got at least 4 years to go. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

19. Lieberman may not be up for election in 2010 but approximately 1/3 of the Senators will be.

I also don't believe passing a mandate to purchase "health" insurance from private for profit corporations will gain any popularity, indeed the reverse will happen.

Having said that, I believe walldude has the best idea, expand Medicare in reconciliation, if that doesn't work go for it during election years.

[pnwmom]

22. Expanding Medicare in reconciliation is a fine idea -- and it can be done AFTER

this bill that regulates the private insurers is passed.

Or a public option for everyone could be introduced, after this bill is passed, as Dr. Dean recently suggested.

[walldude]

7. If you do a Medicare buy-in for all on reconciliation

you only need 51 votes. It's an existing program and can be voted in with a simple majority. It would piss off the right, re-energize the left, get Obama's numbers back up, not give shit to the insurance industry that has been fucking us over for years, and let the tea baggers keep their crappy for profit insurance. Don't have to worry about the likes of Lieberman, Nelson and Landreiu.

Not to mention that the premiums and co-pays could be dirt cheap in comparison to for profit insurance and keep the program deficit neutral. It's an easy, obtainable way to solve many problems.

[brooklynite]

10. And if it's "so easy", where are the 51 Democratic Senators who will support it?

[walldude]

31. You want me to list them?

Figure it out for yourself. There are more than enough votes. This is why people are so angry. There are solutions to HCR without gutting the bill, yet the Dems seem to be ignoring them. I'm bitching as much as anyone but at least I'm offering a workable solution. Not just coming on and saying "there aren't enough votes. Did you count them? I did. We can get 53 without putting much pressure on anyone.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I agree, walldude, that would be a major rebound for the Democratic Party,

pulling the people out of an imminent train wreck.

[Thickasabrick]

12. THAT would do it and make everyone happy - especially the

independents who I've heard are really pissed off.

[pnwmom]

15. If that CAN be done, it can still be done after this bill is passed.

And it will have my full support. Good luck!

[still_one]

16. True, except it will expire, it is not permanent /nt

[Uncle Joe]

20. I believe if it were passed, any political party or Congress allowing it to expire

would pay a heavy political price.

[still_one]

21. I don't know /nt

[Uncle Joe]

25. To my understanding people on Medicare are highly satisfied with the program.

I believe once they can buy in to it, the fear of the unknown would evaporate for the less informed, knee-jerk variety of people and the popularity for the program would grow even higher than it is now.

[walldude]

32. Sure like the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretapping.

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

8. I think we could have had one more to our liking if the president had wanted it

Period. We heard from Russ Feingold this IS the bill the President wanted all along. I think the pressure went all the other way-he pushed it to the right. His deals with Phrma and the insurance industries were sacred. I believe he is letting the Senate take the fall for his desire for this corporate kiss ass bill.

[Kansas Wyatt]

14. Mr. 'Change / Hope' could call anyone out, who is preventing real reform.

Oh yes, he could light a fire under anyone standing in the way and make their life miserable. After all, he is the one who said that business as usual is over, and he is the one who said, 'ENOUGH!'

Too bad Mr. 'Change / Hope' didn't really give a shit about the American People once he was elected. This is not reform, nor is it change or hope for a better tomorrow. It's just more of the same giveaways to Corporate America. Oh, but wait, he did threaten those who stood in the way... Of his watered down compromised gift to Corporate America.

Mr. 'Change / Hope' won't be standing in front of stadium audiences in his re-election campaign... He'll be busing supporters in, much like Jr. did.

[pnwmom]

17. What can he do about Lieberman, who isn't a Democrat? Or the 40 Republicans? n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

23. Make them famous. Mr. 'Change / Hope' holds the microphone.

It is not very difficult at all to smoke anyone who stands up against REAL reform.

American People, Senator Lieberman and 40 Republicans want you to have overpriced worthless insurance for health care, and it's only going to get a lot worse for you. We already have a very good system already set up and ready to go, which nearly all of you firmly believe in now, that has worked very well for your older family members. Which do you want? Medicare for all or their way?

[laughingliberal]

24. Well, since he did not try, we won't know, will we? nt

[still_one]

18. You still haven't said how he could do it? /nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

26. See #23

You don't fucking ask assholes trying to fuck the American People... You tell them to vote for the America People or face a defeat in their next election. That's what "ENOUGH!" meant. Was Lieberman for Public Option at one time?

[Atticus]

27. As I'm sure you are aware, this is a grossly unfair question.

NOW that we have conceded single payer WITHOUT EVEN AN ARGUMENT---
NOW that we have allowed loose cannons to roll about unchecked, uncorrected and UNTHREATENED---
NOW that "OUR" president has spent months basically sitting on his hands while Rahm let people know that the public option wasn't "that" important---
NOW you want to know how we think a different result could be reached?

It likely can't---unless there are some Democrats left who are willing to RISK something.

Me? I'm not a fan of reconciliation. I say let's kill the filibuster and plug a strong public option back into the conference bill, right before we strip Lieberman of his Chairmanship and CHASE the son-of-a-bitch across the aisle.

[Edweird]

28. You don't. Obama has stated that this is what he wants. So we kill it.

Why would we want something that will leave us worse off than before?

[EndElectoral]

29. Your question is predicated on advancing a bad bill.

This bill will:

1. Play into Republicans hands with voters
2. Increase premiums becasue insurance companies will pass on expenses.
3. Compel people to buy insurance who can't afford it
4. Will not contain costs since there is no promised public option
5. Divide democrats dramtically
6. Not allow for the re-importation of drugs
7. Ostracizes women who seek abortion services as unworthy of insurance coverage

Simply advancing a bill when you sacrifice the core principles of what you beleive in is not compromise, it's capitulation.

[notesdev]

30. Answer: you won't

Can't happen as long as the system is driven by payoffs.

We need to drive the moneychangers from the temple of politics first, and only then will any positive change possible.