Scott Brown is owning the dems in the commonwealth state

Pelosi wields more power in the House than Reid in the senate and I suspect if she puts the screws down the Senate Bill will get passed. For that matter not including a public option will likely make up for votes that are lost without the Stupak Amendment from moderates, and maybe some Republicans. Not to forget that many House Democrats didn't like that Amendment to begin with.

What this is going to come down to though is that Pelosi will probably figure out that not passing a health care bill will be much worse for Democrats and that there is almost no possibility of the House Bill passing the Senate since Pelosi can shut off debate in the House while Reid cannot in the Senate.

 

I assume you like grid lock as you view it as "moderate"?

 

I disagree and would bet cash dollars that health reform, even in its current pathetic state, is essentially dead now. The lobbying efforts of the health industries will now go into overdrive, and they're more powerful than Pelosi. (I think the evidence to date, with two really limp bills that ultimately benefit the insurance industry, underscores that.)

America, get ready to put every dollar the nation earns into a world embarrassment of a healthcare system. You won't even see a doctor anymore, and the bills will keep climbing. Imagine the Weimar Republic, needing wheel barrows full of cash just to get a broken bone set.

 

Probably not.

House Democrats weigh in on this question in this article at CNN:

[RQUOTER]House Dems Largely Reject Idea of Passing Senate Health Care Bill

Washington (CNN) -- Despite knowing Senate Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof majority after Tuesday night's political upset in Massachusetts, House Democrats across the political spectrum largely rejected the idea of passing the Senate health care bill.

Liberal New York Democrat Anthony Weiner predicted the Senate bill wouldn't have the votes to pass the House. Weiner ridiculed House Democratic leaders for holding a meeting to brief House Democrats on negotiations with the White House on a health care bill, telling reporters, "They're talking as if, 'What our deal is, what our negotiators are at the White House' -- yeah, and then the last line is, 'Pigs fly out of my ass' ... it's just, we've got to recognize we are in an entirely different scenario."

....

Several rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers on the right and the left suggested it may be best now to scrap their big overhaul bill and pass a smaller measure with provisions they can all agree on, such as barring rejection by insurers for those Americans who have pre-existing conditions and closing the doughnut hole to bring down prescription drug costs. If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we're going to end up with nothing.

But it's unclear if that option, like other contingency plans Democrats are considering, is doable now. Weiner argued the Massachusetts results demonstrated Democrats have to change their strategy on health care. "Large numbers of independent voters saying they're upset about health care, that's not just their fault, that's our fault, too. And we have to think about what we're doing wrong here and to have a conversation as if nothing happened, whether you're in Massachusetts or not, is being tone deaf," he said.

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, who led the charge for language to restrict abortion coverage in the House bill, flatly rejected the Senate's version of health care reform. "The Senate bill is a nonstarter for most members," he said.

Conservative Indiana Democrat Brad Ellsworth, like Weiner, predicted the Senate bill couldn't pass. He told reporters he opposed it mainly because he objected to the inclusion of a special deal for Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson to cover all of that state's costs for expanding Medicaid coverage.

Some Democrats suggested the prospect of no health care bill passing was more likely than rushing to pass the Senate's bill. "If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we're going to end up with nothing. I don't hear a lot of support on our side for that bill," Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch said. Lynch shot down the notion that Democrats could first pass the Senate bill, then pass a second bill that would add some of the changes congressional leaders have negotiated with the White House. "I don't think that's going to happen ... we keep sending bills to the Senate, and they just never come back, so I guess I've lost my faith in anything happening quickly that requires Senate action," he said.

Several other Democrats echoed Lynch's concerns, telling CNN even if there was firm commitment to pass a second bill with changes negotiated between House and Senate leaders and the White House, they wouldn't vote yes.

....[/RQUOTER]

Looks like it is back to the drawing board for health care reform. And as well it should be.

Either we will have a more responsible, scaled down package of health care reforms, or there will be no health care bill signed by Barack Obama. I would expect to see a scaled down package of reforms, but that is likely to take a while to put together.

 

there are many reason why the people of MA don't like the healthcare plan, but a lot of it stems from the fact they have their own, so that's why I'm disputing the claim that this represents the entire country. ma is a very unique situation when it comes to healthcare.

Obama is the victim of unemployment, everything else really is secondary. if this economy turns around by the summer, there will be a completely different sentiment towards washington

if george bush didn't screw up iraq so bad, and if katrina wouldn't have happened, he would have been popular until late 07 early 08, until the economy started to tank

 

To certain extent yes. Efficient government isn't always good government. If there was another GW Bush Admin. would you want it to pass all of its legislation?

Anyway my point was to note the irony of asking for transparency and then calling for another LBJ.

 

I read something by a Democrat I thought was very smart. [pause for laughter]

It was essentially saying that this healthcare needs to die, and we need to go with an incrementalist approach, fix little things here and there. First make better regulations for insurers, and then move on to some other issue.

To me that sounds like the most sensible way to approach this. It would certainly be less partisan, and would actually get things done. But no, we have to have the whole package shoved down our face all at once.

 

In response to you and MojoMan's post I am not surprised there is going to be all sorts of bluster at the moment but I think as things start to clear that the House will cave.

I don't think a scaled down bill will pass as I don't think the Senate could handle another health care bill, even a scaled down one. The Republicans are right to say that Health Care will be Obama's Waterloo and politically the Republicans aren't going to be willing to hand Obama even a mild victory on that one.

Pelosi will realize that Democrat fortunes are tied to a bill getting passed and at the moment there is no other bill that has a chance other than the Senate. Its not going to serve the Democrats to try and negotiate a new bill and keep on dragging out the process.

 

From yesterday:

Everyone in this country is agreed on the landmark importance and symbolism of today's Massachusetts special election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. There are two candidates in this race whose starkly contrasting views tell the entire story:


The Massachusetts Alternatives:


One candidate supported a major tax increase on the people of Massachusetts. The other opposes tax increases on principle.

One candidate supported and helped pass Massachusetts' 2006 universal health care law. The other opposed it.

One supports President Barack Obama's foreign policy. The other is unequivocally opposed to it.

One is a lawyer. The other is a businessman with a background in information technology, computer science, and business management.

One was born to a political family, and held signs for their father at a young age. The other was born to poor immigrants and adopted as an infant by a pastor and his wife.

One supports the nanny state and agrees with Barack Obama's opposition to gay marriage, but support for civil unions. The other believes government should stay out of the issue of marriage altogether.

One supports the Federal government's role in taxing income, regulating education, and allowing the Federal Reserve Bank to continue printing money out of thin air. The other adamantly opposes all three.


The first candidate in the comparisons above is not Democrat Martha Coakley (though she is admittedly even worse). The first candidate is actually Republican Scott Brown, who as a state senator voted for a major tax package and Romney's universal healthcare plan, who supports Obama's reckless troop surge in Afghanistan, and who is a career lawyer and politician.

The second candidate is the Libertarian Party candidate in the Massachusetts' Special Senate Election, Joe Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy family). Sources: here, here, and here. So why on earth are conservatives, libertarians, and tea party activists celebrating Scott Brown's likely victory today?


The Massachusetts Outcome

Brown's victory seems imminent. He's absolutely massacred his second biggest opponent, Martha Coakley. The talking heads on MSNBC have essentially conceded the race to Brown. Scott Brown's raging online support positively dwarfs Martha Coakley's.

And on the ground, she's not doing much better, flipping out and calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan, trailing Brown in the polls by nine points, unable to convince a primarily Independent state that she's an independent thinker, and even unable to energize her own supporters who have abandoned her campaign (last three links via: The Reaganite Republican).

With this kind of overwhelming victory against the Democrats on the horizon, I can see why it's easy for conservatives and even some libertarians to get excited, but DID YOU READ what Scott Brown really stands for in the list of alternatives above? Can we really be happy with a tax-increasing, universal-healthcare-voting, money-printing lawyer!?

I feel like I'm the only libertarian left who hasn't completely lost his mind. Please somebody comment and tell me that I'm not the only sane one left who's keeping his head on straight in the midst of all of this!


Conservatives and Libertarians Hail Brown Victory

The Libertarian Republican, Eric Dondero, is celebrating Scott Brown's imminent victory as "The Greatest Republican Victory since Bush beat Kerry in 2004." I respect Eric Dondero, have collaborated with him on the blogosphere before, and will continue to do so, but Eric- how can you see either Brown's or Bush's victory as a victory for the Republican Party?

After winning in 2004, Bush continued to push his agenda of unprecedented government expansion, control, and intrusion. His administration saw the most radical growth in the welfare state since Lyndon B. Johnson. He tarnished the Republican brand, angered conservative voters, and set up the GOP for massive losses in 2006 and 2008.

With his voting record, speeches, and interviews, we can count on no less from Scott Brown. Is it really a victory for the GOP to elect another Olympia Snowe-style Republican from the Northeast? And I have no clue what the 2008 Libertarian Party VP candidate and prospective 2012 Presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root is doing supporting a big-government Republican over the LIBERTARIAN PARTY candidate, Joe Kennedy!

Meanwhile, even the Cato Institute's, Dr. Jeffrey Miron wonders out loud whether he should vote for big-government Republican Scott Brown or small-government Libertarian Joe Kennedy- the classic lesser-of-two-evils conundrum. Dr. Miron, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Mark my words- Scott Brown's record proves what side of history he's on- the side of the establishment and its machinations. He and his mindset are part of the problem, not the solution.


link

 

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4aQCiRjvZY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4aQCiRjvZY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

This will be interesting to see how it plays out. The GOP isn't going to cave on a lesser package either - their purpose was to kill health care reform in all forms as evidenced by the "Waterloo" comment. Giving the Dems a win on the issue at this point after being near the kill would be politically kind of silly.

That said, it's unclear if Dems are smart enough to recognize this. Dems traditionally have serious problems coming together on anything and wussing out a lot. I'd say either the Senate bill is going to pass or there's going to be no health reform at all.

 

Someone needs to send everyone in the House this chart:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084856.shtml

 

yup!!

 

Actually, I live in Massachusetts and I've seen a lot of interviews on the local news where people were saying that they weren't so much voting for Brown as they were voting against Coakley.

 

That was pretty funny..

Hitler: and where are the Gays in the military!

What move is the original from? Someone on Clutchfans did one a month ago about T-Mac that was hilarious.

 

That is not true at all. The Republicans have put forward several proposals for health care reform over the last year, and most Republicans in Congress have spoken quite openly about the changes that they consider important to pass. The problem up until now is that these proposals were dismissed by the Democrats out of hand.

Republicans are in favor of health care reform, but they are not in favor of 'comprehensive' health care reform. The American people appear to have grasped the difference between these two concepts. They have also come to appreciate what an excellent health care system we have, even though they do realize it is in need of some improvements and corrections.

Any health care reform effort should be focused on improving and correcting our generally excellent health care system. If a health bill were developed in Congress that focused only on that, without all of the political gotcha games, I sincerely believe it could get 80 votes in the Senate.

Reforming health insurance should be a bipartisan issue with remarkable similarities to the credit card insurance reform passed the Senate by a vote of 90-5 in May of 2009. Health insurance reform could easily be crafted that obtained similar levels of support, if the Democrats were to allow it.

 

Two days ago...around the one minute mark.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ueji0Q4RZyo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ueji0Q4RZyo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

The only person who is deserving to be "laughed off of the stage" in this clip is Kieth Olbermann.

 

Sure - but those proposals are not anything Democrats support. It doesn't make sense to try to pass a bill that is favored by the minority party but not the majority party. That's not a compromise / moderate solution - that's a Republican solution. And none of the proposals offered actually made any sense - their cost/benefit ratios were terrible and there were relatively few details because they knew it wasn't going anywhere. The Dem proposal was really popular when there were no details too.

Actually, if you look at the chart I posted, it's just the oppposite. There are more people that the bill doesn't go far enough than that believe it goes too far.

 

Nice. I especially liked healthcare reform dragging on forever, "like Stalingrad."