Pelosi: Bill dead unless a companion is passed under reconcilliation in the senate

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/...ticsOfCrime+(TalkLeft:+The+Politics+of+Crime)


Pelosi: Companion Reconciliation Fix Necessary For Passage Of Senate Health Bill


By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:21:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags) Share This: Digg!

WaPo:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that [. . .]"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters after a morning meeting with her caucus. "I don't see the votes for it at this time." [. . .] Aides said afterward that the best option would be for the Senate to pass a bill that fixes those and other issues under fast-track rules that require a simple majority. But the Senate has not agreed to do so.​

This is the political reality. Whether Village Dems will accept that or not, that is where we are.

 

[Topspin]

she knows it's redistribution of wealth and now is not the time to dig deep into average Joe's pocket again.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

she knows it's redistribution of wealth and now is not the time to dig deep into average Joe's pocket again.

The family makes 50k a year; they'd get 2/3 subsidies under the senate plan.

You're not the average Joe and even you wouldn't be hit with a tax (well, unless you have one of the vague "cadillac" plans).

 

[Topspin]

The family makes 50k a year; they'd get 2/3 subsidies under the senate plan.

You're not the average Joe and even you wouldn't be hit with a tax (well, unless you have one of the vague "cadillac" plans).

I've heard of a single mom in Ma paying $1,200 month

I don't trust Obama/Pelosi on this one

and thats without talking about the redistribution of the country's wealth part.

 

[Onceler]

At this point, I'd prefer to see a genuinely bipartisan bill - something that could get 70-80 votes in the Senate, 300+ in the House.

Figure out what you can agree on, and start from there.

 

[Bonestorm]

At this point, I'd prefer to see a genuinely bipartisan bill - something that could get 70-80 votes in the Senate, 300+ in the House.

Figure out what you can agree on, and start from there.

A link to the bill you'd prefer is below:

 

[Damocles]

Reconciliation is for budget issues not this, this would set a precedent that you don't want to set and that is if the Parliamentarian didn't reject it. It is clear that this isn't simply a budget issue.

 

[Damocles]

A link to the bill you'd prefer is below:

A link to the attempt to create such a bill is below:

 

[Onceler]

A link to the bill you'd prefer is below:

That's pretty good.

I am not very optmisitic about the possibility, either...

 

[Canceled1]

A link to the attempt to create such a bill is below:

Is below what?

 

[Damocles]

Is below what?

Below these colons:

 

[Bonestorm]

That's pretty good.

I am not very optmisitic about the possibility, either...

If you look at the Republican outline for their plan, there is pretty much zero alignment with anything the Democrats were proposing. Republicans didn't include some of the most popular provisions of the Democratic bills: a ban on denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions and a ban on insurance rescissions except in cases of actual fraud. If you can't even agree to those two things, the likelihood of agreeing on anything else is no too good.

Maybe there is room for horse-trading, but I don't know that the result would actually end up being any good for anyone.

 

[NOVA]

At this point, I'd prefer to see a genuinely bipartisan bill - something that could get 70-80 votes in the Senate, 300+ in the House.

Figure out what you can agree on, and start from there.

There is a lot that can be done to "reform" the healthcare system without a complete government takeover....actually without ANY gov. takeover.....starting with tort reform and doing something about the border mess and illegals raping the system and the tax payers of the country in hundreds of ways....time for some tough love

 

[NOVA]

If you look at the Republican outline for their plan, there is pretty much zero alignment with anything the Democrats were proposing. Republicans didn't include some of the most popular provisions of the Democratic bills: a ban on denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions and a ban on insurance rescissions except in cases of actual fraud. If you can't even agree to those two things, the likelihood of agreeing on anything else is no too good.

Maybe there is room for horse-trading, but I don't know that the result would actually end up being any good for anyone.

Agreeing with the libs and getting nothing in return is not "horse trading"...its capitulation....

 

[Bonestorm]

If you look at the Republican outline for their plan, there is pretty much zero alignment with anything the Democrats were proposing. Republicans didn't include some of the most popular provisions of the Democratic bills: a ban on denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions and a ban on insurance rescissions except in cases of actual fraud. If you can't even agree to those two things, the likelihood of agreeing on anything else is no too good.

Maybe there is room for horse-trading, but I don't know that the result would actually end up being any good for anyone.

And I'd add that the above was the state of affairs when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I don't see what incentive the Republicans now have to compromise. Why should they?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

At this point, I'd prefer to see a genuinely bipartisan bill - something that could get 70-80 votes in the Senate, 300+ in the House.

Figure out what you can agree on, and start from there.

The Republicans aren't going to vote for anything that saves lives. This is a pollyanna idea.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Wyden-Bennet is a possible idea.

 

[Topspin]

The Republicans aren't going to vote for anything that saves lives. This is a pollyanna idea.

wow, your crybaby routine is really old already gerber

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

wow, your crybaby routine is really old already gerber

You oppose saving lives. Admit it.

 

[Onceler]

And I'd add that the above was the state of affairs when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I don't see what incentive the Republicans now have to compromise. Why should they?

Well, as always, it's all about winning elections. Ergo, it's about marketing.

People WANT healthcare reform. Everyone is paying higher premiums; everyone knows someone who was denied coverage; everyone knows someone without coverage.

Democrats have to market their ideas better, and more importantly, market the willingness to compromise. If the GOP says no to common sense ideas like insurance denials, blast the hell out of them. They're still the minority party, and Brown made a big deal about "let's get back to the drawing board"; if they start coming across as just the party of no in the face of reasonable attempts to meet them halfway, they screw themselves.