Senate HCR Bill: Pass it or Kill it?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Regarding the senate Health Care bill, based on what you know about the bill as it exists today...

[maglatinavi]

1. kill it

Kudos to Howard Dean!!! Kill the frigging bill!!! Lets recruit Howard for 2012!!! It is never too late... either him or Hillary...or maybe both!!!
:applause: :woohoo: :yourock: :applause: :woohoo: :yourock: :applause: :woohoo: :yourock:

[ima_sinnic]

3. not sure about Hillary but I'd back Howard 200% (nt)

[quinnox]

4. Yes, I would go for Hillary

At this point she couldn't be worse than Obama has turned out to be.

[shadowknows69]

53. Yeah, she really could. They eat at the same corporate troughs.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. Hillary would be as bad or worse

Remember, corporate insurance mandates were what she actually campaigned on. That and "obliterating Iran".

[Sparkly]

43. Not true.

:eyes:

[shadowknows69]

54. Um, yeah it is. She actually uttered the words herself.

Probably video of it if you don't believe me.

[Sparkly]

73. No, I don't believe you.

There were only slight differences in their policy positions.

Even DU didn't refute that during the campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3571384

[shadowknows69]

74. Wow, 19 replies. You must be right then. All of DU agreed with you .

Really? Using one of your own threads to prove a point? FAIL.

[Sparkly]

76. Yup -- there wasn't much to say, was there?

Their positions were virtually identical, with a few slight variations.

[dflprincess]

61. I agree

By the time our caucuses rolled around in 2008 Obama and Clinton were the only candidates left. I caucused on uncommitted though if a gun had been put to my head I would have gone with Obama - but only because I had a better idea of what to expect from Clinton. I had a vague hope Obama might be an improvement... I was wrong. TPB really did leave us with a Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dee choice for the nomination.

[defendandprotect]

82. TPB select the candidates . .. we don't . . we get to vote for their leaders ...!!!

[LakeSamish706]

6. Howard Dean yes, Hillary not so much... Remember she is a Hawk and would

no doubt have us in endless wars..

[Sparkly]

44. Her foreign policy was virtually identical to Obama's

except on the matter of attacking within Pakistan.

[shadowknows69]

75. And she would have probably bombed Iran by now.

[Sparkly]

77. You must be a fiction writer. nt

[quinnox]

2. Forget about this so called "reform"

I'd rather have nothing than the "Joe Lieberman Health Care Reform Act"

[1]

7. they are not going to kill it. this is promised "reform" and then its away to christmas...

[GreenArrow]

8. It's not a real reform bill; it's a fake reform bill

and that they have wasted so much time and energy to come up with something like this is insulting in the extreme.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. There is huge support for the Status Quo on this board...

There is massive support to all to let 50+ million people continue to die without health insurance.

I can't explain it, though I'm pretty sure we haven't had a massive Infiltation of Teabaggers, though a lot of these posts do resemble Teabagger get togethers I've seen documented here and elsewhere.

[Yuugal]

24. My kids will lose their ins

They will lose their free SCHIP to have their dad try to pay 10k a year in premiums and another 5k for the deductible which means they won't be going to the doctor anymore. Just who do you know that will benefit from this?

[Sebastian Doyle]

45. Seems to be some support for WORSE than the status quo as well

[Dr Fate]

49. And some insist that our reps could continue to push for reform w/o this shit bill.

n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

67. If no bill passes the Senate, it is history for another 6 years.

I have watched my insurance premiums rise faster than a Saturn V on its way to the moon. Any one who thinks that ending reform for a minimum of 6 years either hasn't throught things through or has no clue about how our system works. If the Senate Fails we will be completely at the mercy of Insurance companies who paid to see it fail.

[Dr Fate]

68. At least that's what the same centrists who oppose it in the 1st place threaten us with.

Besides, I thought the meme was "16- 20 years" before the centrists allow us to agree with them on Health Care again.

LOL! Do I hear 25? 30?

I never proposed ending the debate for 6 years- the very centrists who oppose reform in the first place are the only ones who can carry out that threat.

"If you dont agree with us now- we will make you wait 6 years before we allow you to agree with us again"- Now that is some rigged up bull shit and I'm not buying it.

A majority in congress with will & spine can debate & vote on any issue it wants, and there is no rule saying they have to wait 6 years or longer to pick it back up again.

More on what I beleive is a rigged threat/ false meme here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7236909

[Ozymanithrax]

70. I say 6, because Obama will not try this again. IT will be his successor if he serves 2 terms.

Now, if we see a President Palin, I am sure she will be please that Democrats failed to pass health care, because she really cares about people and will probably encoruage faith healing by witch doctors.

No Repbulican will try to reform health care. They and their supporters, on both sides of the aisle, are working to kill the bill. I put 6 years because that will run Obama through a second term, though there are a lot here at DU who are now calling for him to be un-elected in 2012.

[Dr Fate]

71. Then we agree- the "you will have to wait" is a threat by design, not a neccessity or a rule.

If Palin wins in 2012, it will be b/c DEMS like you accepted lame-ass " but-but-but DEMS will make us wait 6 years or more unless we do what Lieberman says" excuse as opposed to forcing DEMS to continue to fight for a bill that will actually be popular.

You have yet to show us that Obama and DEMS are somehow being forced to wait years and years unless we accept what Joe wants.

As I said, some of us dont buy your threat/excuse that DEMS could not continue to work on this up until the midterms, if they really had the will to do so.

And why are you bringing up Palin? Lieberman, the great hero of DEM HCR is the DLC centrist and "Democrat" in good standing who campainged for her and lent her credibility- if any one needs to be accused of lending her support, it's the DEMS who essentially rewarded Joe for stumping for her, not DEMS like me who want DEMS to fight for a good bill.

[Ozymanithrax]

72. I guess at future events by actions in the past.

Clinton was defeated by Republicans in his attempt to reform health care. He never tired again because he didn't have the support to do so. (Republicans retook the house and he spent the rest of his time in office fighing impeachment.)

Bush didn't try becuase he supported Health Care companies and the Status Quo. But after a brief attempt to privatize Social Security he realize that would not fly and left it for the Next Republican President to attempt.

Neither Obama nor the Senate will try this again, that is a best guess from history. It is not a threat.

HIstorically, the party in power loses seats in a midterm. Nobody is going to try and pass this again next year. I suspect we will see 10 to 20 seats in the House and probably a Senator or two, well within historical president. That change will doom any attempt to pass Health Care. It is impossible to get a progressive bill with the margins we have in both houses. cutting those margins makes centrists and conservatives stronger. And if progressives here at DU have anything to say, it will be a rout with the House and Senate changing hands while they set on theirs. (I understand why they do this because, in our system, the only way to punish a party that doesn't do your bidding is to remove them from power.)

If you can show me a 60+ majority in the Senate and a 218 members of the House that will pass a bill next year, or anytime in the next six, (you must have both) I will gladly put that in consideration.

[Dr Fate]

87. And that would be due to their CHOICE to GIVE UP- not due to any rule or necessity

I dont see why we cant keep working towards real reform, right up until a few months or so before the midterms, if need be.

I already know that they are too lazy or dont give a shit enought to even TRY to get a better bill b/f the midterms. And I already know that if they abandon further HC debate, that will by CHOICE- no one is actually forcing them to give up.

It's a false meme that a DEM who REALLY wanted reform and who had the will would have to support Liebermans Bill, and that they could not, in the alternatve continue to fight for a good bill ove the next few months.

I realize that this is what corrupt DEMS might CHOOSE to do, but lets be clear that they dont have to go with this "20 year rule".

Yes-past events show us that DEMS did not want to fight for HC after Clinton lost the Senate in the midterms- that is why I suggest that DEMS work to get a good bill BEFORE then.

[murdoch]

81. "Insurance companies who paid to see it fail"

The method the insurance companies paid to see it fail was by buying the Republicans, buying Lieberman (who is not a Democrat) and having these 41 Senators threatening to filibuster anything the HMOs did not approve of.

So yes, the insurance companies paid to see it fail but it already failed. Not passing the bill is a failure, but handing the bill over to Lieberman and the Republicans to write is failure as well.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. poll participation kick

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. ...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. ..

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. .

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

59. boom

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

94. ...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

100. ..

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

102. ,

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

105. bang

[Cronus Protagonist]

11. This changiness isn't worth the paper its written on

And I'm not paying the insurance companies or the fines.

[Raine]

12. KILL this mess. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. unrecc'ing a non-biased poll is kind of primitive

[HughMoran]

16. I recced it just for S&G

'cause I agree - it's idiotic to unrec an unbiased poll.

[HughMoran]

15. Small company employee here - will save me $20k/yr in exchange versus what we have

We can't compete in the current system. Owner has preexisting condition that prevents getting any other coverage, so this will be good for him too. I'm torn - this bill sucks but I'm up the creek once my Cobra runs out unless this bill is passed.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Very reasonable set of concerns

I think I would vote for it because I don't think there is any likely scenario for a do-over.

But it is disappointing.

[HughMoran]

18. I'm apoplectic over what Lieberman did

:mad:

I don't think I could be any more angry. But we were just discussing this here and we can't afford to wait - open enrollment is in Jan. and we need options - we can't compete with big companies who are paying half what we are for insurance - it's against everything that the US is supposed to stand for to have big companies have such an unfair advantage - it stifles competition and makes the multi-nationals even more powerful.

[defendandprotect]

83. IMO, we have to stop focusing on Lieberman + focus on those giving him this power ...

Do we think this is the way the GOP would have handled a "Lieberman" . . .

leaving him in his Chairmanship?

Letting Lieberman single-handledly wag the Democratic Party and the whole of the

health care agenda? Are you kidding?

Evidently, Lieberman is even more powerful right now that Obmama!!!

Do you really believe that?

[Ms. Toad]

41. Ditto here - more than $20,000 a year.

And, it will permit my daughter who has an extremely serious illness to take some time off from school without losing the ability to obtain insurance as my dependent. After having nothing lower than an A for as long as I can remember, she is now failing approximately half her classes because her illness has made it impossible for her to keep up with her work. She desperately needs to take time off, but with $60,000 in medical expenses every year, as long as nothing new goes wrong, she can't afford to lose insurance as my dependent.

[HughMoran]

46. Between people like us and the 30 million or so who will get insurance

I hate to say this, but I can't in good conscience suggest that the Congress not pass this plan.

I can tell by your situation and the issue your daughter has that you probably feel as I do.

[Ms. Toad]

89. I do.

The bill is not anything close to what I would like to see passed, but it still meets my minimum criteria:

* Guaranteed issue
* Coverage of pre-existing conditions
* Premium parity (i.e. premiums not based on health)
* No lifetime limits (although I do need to look at the language around annual limits - the cost of a transplant approaches the previous lifetime limits in many plans - so annual limits undercut the purpose of having no annual limits)
* Subsidies for those with fewer resources

In addition, dependents will be able to stay on their parents' plan until age 26, without the requirement that they be full time students - a godsend for those of us with chronically ill children who are forced to make educational decisions based on the impact those decisions have on whether our children forfeit access to health care.

It is just barely more than insurance reform (the subsidies) - BUT it is significant insurance reform. Compared to the last insurance reform more than a decade ago (HIPAA - which ostensibly created guaranteed issue health insurance for those already insured, but left the premiums health based, and left it up to state implementation - most of which didn't bother, it is MAJOR insurance reform.

This insurance reform will make insurance available to millions who are currently being denied coverage. It will prevent those who have insurance from being dropped because they get sick, or from having their premiums raised so high they might as well have been dropped when they got sick. It will result in significantly lower premiums for those who are currently denied insurance than they would have to pay under the few plans that accept them. It will provide access to insurance without cost for many on the lower end of the income scale.

As long as we are stuck with insurance, insurance MUST be reformed (and no, this kind of insurance reform cannot be done by regulation - which some have suggested as an alternative; it goes beyond what Congress has previously authorized and requires legislation before the implementing regulations can be drafted).

[dysfunctional press]

79. starting in 2014...? or is it sooner?

[Ms. Toad]

90. I think it's 2014 for the exchange

There is a provision for the uninsured that kicks in immediately - but the details are sketchy.

[HughMoran]

93. I'm on Cobra and I won't be offered insurance

So I'll be able to keep Cobra until exchanges are available - at least that's how the House bill works - i hope the combined bill works similarly.

[Ms. Toad]

95. There is an immediate pool for people wthout insurance

if COBRA expires (typically 18 months) you should be eligible for that pool, or at a minimum an individually policy under HIPAA. Hope for access to the immediate pool - it should be cheaper than either COBRA or the individual policy under HIPAA.

[Baclava]

19. It feels like the old "bait and switch"

And the pitchmen continue to pitch.

If there's one thing Americans are good at is comparison shopping for the best deal.

With one hand on their wallets.

We demand free coupons too.


I hope this isn't more of that "legacy" talk. I hate that.

[kenny blankenship]

27. and switch, and switch, and switch

and...

[karynnj]

20. Dean won only VT in 2004

in spite of starting early 2004 with more party support, Gore and Harkin, more money and by far the most internet support. Yet, face to face, he couldn't gain enough supporters in Iowa - getting only 18% of the caucus goers in a race where he was called the frontrunner. Kerry got TWENTY points more.

This was BEFORE the scream. If not for the scream, the stories that night would have been - "Why Kerry did so well" - with little party or media support then - and "Why Dean badly lost a race he was predicted to win". The fact is that second story, in typical media fashion, would have been a litany of all the worst moments in Iowa. The scream coverage might have been better.

There is no way that the SoS could quit and run in the primaries against her boss - especially as she is more hawkish than he is. As to Dean, it was clear by late 2003, that he really wasn't that happy as a candidate. I seriously doubt he will ever run for anything, much less the Presidency against an incumbent. I don't think anyone will challenge Obama, but someone like Feingold (who I doubt could win - but he could be this decade's Gene McCarthy) would be more likely than HRC or Dean.

[Odin2005]

21. Kill it.

[librechik]

22. "It's horrible, but it will save lives" not passing is like cutting nose to spite face

Says Alan Grayson.

I'm frustrated and don't know what to do, so I'm with Al. Get it passed, then we'll do what we have to do next.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. That's about how I feel

[hayu_lol]

26. Kill this overmanipulated bill...

and write a very simple new bill that would provide SINGLE-PAYER NATIONAL HEALTH coverage to all in the country. Full coverage for treatment and all prescribed drugs on a sliding scale based upon income.

Might be time to consider adding some basic dental and vision coverage as well.

May come a time in the future when we might want government-run crematoriums as well. This last is just food for thought.

Other, smaller countries have provided single-payer, we can just damn will do it for our own.

[librechik]

96. Here is the Schumer/Dean plan--split the bill into a medicare expansion bill (budgetary)

(Medicare part E=Everybody)for a reconciliation vote (50 votes to win plus Biden) And the pother part, the insurance regulation part, goes through the filibuster process.

[defendandprotect]

84. No -- it will cost lives in the long run -- it puts corporations firmly in control of our

healh care!!

And that's been good for us???

That's what's caused this crime scene of health care we have today!!

[Ms. Toad]

91. They are in control now

virtually without limit. As long as they are going to remain in control, I want limits. This bill imposes the limits I care most about.

It is not health care reform - it is insurance reform, but if health care is not going to be reformed, insurance must be.

[defendandprotect]

103. Until we re-regulate capialism it is merely and only organized crime . . .

There are no limits in this health care deform --

Harry Reid removed the restrictions banning insurance companies setting "annual limits" --

and many other restrictions --

freeing them to still operate outside our anti-trust laws --

No negotiation on drug prices --

No cost controls --

The public will be taxed now for a plan that doesn't go into effect until 2014 --

giving a timely opportunity for the corporate GOP to take a shot at totally killing it!

It will also cut back insurance benefits, reduce coverage -- increase co-pays and

deductions.

Briefly, like the privatizing the Medicare Drug Plan which gave hundreds of billions to

the pharmaceutical companies ...

This legislation will give $600 BILLion/$800 BILLION to the insurance and drug companies --

Why??

CORPORATISM/FASCISM which is running our government, our Congress and our elected officials!!

See the Jane Hamsher articles posted here at DU right now --

If you want an improved furture for yourself and your children, this isn't it --

This legislation will cement corporations into our health care rather than ridding our

system of corporate corruption!

[Ms. Toad]

104. This insurance reform, does impose limits

including the ones I care most about:

* Mandatory issue
* Premium parity (i.e. not based on a the individual's health status)
* Mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions
* Prohibition agaisnt dropping coverage (or raising premiums) based on health status
* No lifetime limits (I have not yet reviewed the annual limits to see if I agree with the assessment some have made that annual limits are permitted, or to what extent if they are. There have been other wild exaggerations about things in various bills which were clearly not consistent with the language of the bills - so I am reserving judgment on the issue of annual limits.)

In addition, it also includes two things that were not on my mandatory minimum list:

* significantly increasing free or low cost coverage by a combination of upping the Medicaid limits and/or providing subsidies.

* increasing the age through which children can remain on their parents' policies as dependents, and eliminating the requirement that those children be full time students.

I am under no illusion that this insurance reform is perfect, or that it is health care reform - it is far from it.

It is, however, significant insurance reform - reform I have been fighting for for over a decade with ZERO progress. The last insurance reform, not a very significant one, went into effect between 1998 and 2000 and provided mandatory issue of an individual policy to a small group of previously insured individuals following the expiration of COBRA, or change in family or job status; the price of that policy was permitted to be based on the health status of the individual seeking coverage. That trivial change was a great relief to me - since it meant that (since I then currently had insurance) as long as I had enough money to pay the premiums I always had access to insurance coverage. It did NOTHING for uninsurable individuals who were not already covered, it did NOTHING to level out the premiums. It did nothing to cap lifetime limits.

Insurance companies are not going to go out of business because we stomp out feet and hold our breath until we turn blue in the face for the decade plus it will take for real health care reform. Those who have jobs which provide insurance, or those who are young and healthy, will have access to insurance and health care. Those who have no means will get the sub-par health care via ER visits. Those in the middle, who are not eligible for insurance and/or cannot afford the $14,000-$50,000 per year premium for high risk insurance (IF it is available), will be stuck paying out of pocket for their own costs - bumped up to cover the bill for those without means who use the ER, and the discount provided to insurance companies - and will increasingly end up bankrupt.

IF we're stuck with insurance companies (and we are) they need to be forced to at least make their product available to everyone on a level playing field. This is the first time in over a decade that any real progress has been made to increase access to health care. However imperfect this bill is, it will increase access to health care by making insurance more available to more people. If the choice is waiting with the status quo v. this bill, this bill is far better than continuing the status quo.

[sendero]

25. At this point...

... the administration just wants this train wreck passed so he can declare victory.

Victory for who? I'm not sure of all of the details of the bill but I'm not sure that it is really going to help many people.

I just, at this point after all these shenanigans and Obama's seeming lack of leadership, have no faith in this bill. None.

[optimator]

28. any individual mandates should be killed regardless

even if it had a public option.
It will never ever be worth it.

[Buns_of_Fire]

29. By and large, I'm trying to withhold judgement until the final bill is out.

A lot can happen during the reconciliation process -- both good and bad.

Up to this point, though, I don't have the warm and fuzzy feeling I suppose I should.

[Edweird]

30. Kill it with fire.

[Popular Front]

32. Pass it. Health care for all. n/t

[sabrina 1]

36. Explain how this bill is 'healthcare for all'!

[Popular Front]

37. Universal health care = health care for all

Hello???

[Selatius]

38. You're going to have to pass a financial aid package afterward when people declare bankruptcy.

Because the bill does not contain effective cost control measures with any teeth. It will simply drown people in huge bills and wreck the economy as a result. Sure, the bill prevents exorbitant rate increases, but it doesn't stop the slow rise to boiling point. So they can't jack up rates more than 10% in a year. They'll just jack up rates 9.99% instead indefinitely. Try getting a pay raise per year that keeps up with that.

Howard Dean is right. The Senate bill should be killed.

[Popular Front]

40. So why are the insurance companies trying to kill the bill? n/t

[Selatius]

42. They're hedging their bets on no health care bill?

:shrug:

At least that way when the reform effort collapses, they will still be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, practice rescission on policyholders, set arbitrary lifetime caps on benefits, and jack up rates on people as high as they want. In the House, the best they could manage is forcing a private insurance mandate but not without bans on discriminatory practices, but the Senate allows them to go for the best option: No bill.

[shadowknows69]

58. They're only killing the parts they don't like

They're practically writing themselves at this point.

[sabrina 1]

65. And since this is not a universal health care bill but

an expansion of what we already have, health care for profit, I ask again,explain how this bill covers everyone. If I wanted cheerleading rather than facts I wouldn't be asking for details of the bill itself, would I?

[shadowknows69]

56. On what planet?

[slackmaster]

34. I don't know enough about it to support it

So I guess my vote would be to kill it.

[upi402]

35. abstain, lack of info n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

39. Dunno. On the one hand, I think that Obama really really really wants a bill passed.

If we kill it, he might consider reconciliation much more seriously. I think that's what Dr. Dean is getting at.

On the other, I'm afraid we'll have to wait another 16 years.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

47. That's an interesting angle

The idea of reconciliation being almost a political necessity if the bill failed in the senate.

[dysfunctional press]

51. we WON'T have to wait another 16 years...

ever-increasing healthcare costs will have bankrupted the country by then. if something else doesn't do it first.

[Dr Fate]

57. I think that is FALSE meme stated by the same "centrists" who oppose it in the 1st place.

n/t

[dysfunctional press]

60. as a dr., you should already know that it isn't a 'false meme'.

didn't you have to take some math classes in pre-med? :shrug:

[Dr Fate]

62. You failed to tell me why it isnt false. Plus, I'm not a medical Doctor, I only play one on DU!

But I have earned the academic title of Doctor, believe it or not!

I've never heard of any rule, in math class or otherwise that says congress is only allowed to debate & vote on major issues in 15-20 year cycles.

It's either a false meme, or it's only true b/c centrist DEMS rigged it thay way by design, not according some rule or necessity.

Thread on this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7236909

[dysfunctional press]

63. i guess i misunderstood what you were calling a 'false meme' when you responded to my post...

i thought that you were saying that the idea that spiraling healthcare costs would bankrupt the nation before 16 more years passed by was the false meme.

but yes- i agree that the idea that if it doesn't pass now, we'll have to wait practically a generation is false.

[Dr Fate]

55. Who started the meme that congress is only allowed to adress the PO every 16 years?

Is this something that congress itself threatens us with, or is there some rule I never heard of?

Who besides the conservatives who oppose the PO is going to stop congress from re-debating the PO at any point, at any time?

See what I mean-it's a rigged game.

We either support what the centrists tell us to support, or those same centrists will hold it up and wont tell us to support for another 16 years? Is that what we are saying?

Makes no sense.

If we have to wait 16 years, then it's by the design of a rigged game, not some necessity.

[usregimechange]

48. I am too indifferent to vote

[dysfunctional press]

50. drop it like the steaming turd that it is.

howard dean is 187% right on this one.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

52. 80% of DU hate Lieberman so much they'd kill 150k people over a decade.

That's some pretty intense hatred that you'd rather see 150,000 people die needlessly over a 10 year period just to spite Lieberman. Pretty psychotic.

[Bjorn Against]

86. Wow, I think you win the prize for the most ridiculous post of the day

Opposing the Lieberman plan is not going to kill 150,000 people, I don't know where you get the number but I can assure you that anyone who tells you that we will save 150,000 lives if we force everyone to send a check to the insurance industry every month is full of crap.

[Kablooie]

64. Pass the bill, kill the senators that wrote it.

[defendandprotect]

85. Kill the bill and get rid of the corporations that wrote it -- and control it --!!!

[Kablooie]

88. Kill Bill and Kill Bill II.

[Shagbark Hickory]

66. WOW. you'd think this was a nutbagger forum

I voted to kill it but only becuase I'd rather continue going uninsured than have anyone take credit for this shit bill.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

69. The 80-20 seems stable

It has been steady for a lot of votes and that result is replicated in another poll here

[dysfunctional press]

78. let it die the death of 41nays.

question- if they decide to use reconciliation- should they still drop the public option and/or medicare buy-in...?

[lonestarnot]

80. Pass the bill, kill the bill either way we lose. I think Joe should be paid a visit by the hatchet

man, whoever he is and whatever form he takes.

[Vidar]

92. The present travesty should be killed.

[Nye Bevan]

97. Pass. It's better than what we have now.

And it can be improved on in the future. I think the probability of improving on this bill later on, if it passes, is *much* greater than the probability of getting *anything* done on HCR, anytime soon, if this bill fails. The problem if the bill fails will be the feeling that if Obama couldn't get HCR done, nobody can, so let's not even try.

I'm a bit surprised that 80% of DU disagrees with me on this.

[B Calm]

98. Kill it and start over with SINGLE PAYER!

[Kansas Wyatt]

99. +1

At the very least, you start out with the best you could ever dream for, then negotiate down from there.

Note: You don't start out with what you expect to get, and then have it cut down to nothing in the end. What a colossal fucking waste of political capital!

[B Calm]

101. Congress critters would make terrible union negotiators