Democrats Promise this is the First of Many Healthcare Bills

[Fate]

What I say is that if the American health system isn't broke then why try to fix it ?

How would Britain react if tomorrow there were 9.4 million British citizens were uninsured? (proportional to the US figure of 47 million)

It's broke. It needs fixing.

[alfred russel]

The Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. If they can't pass anything now, they certianly can't after 2010.

I've been saying this for a while, but this 60 seat majority is meaningless.  Democrats are not a monolithic party that can get its members to pass anything they want.  Anything that Democrats pass by 60 votes in the Senate will be an internal bipartisan agreement of sorts.

Internal bipartisan? 

I'm with Faeelin--you are right that Harry Reid can't dictate what is in the bills that are finally passed just because he has 60 votes, but if they can't get results now, when can they? It is unlikely the are going to get an appreciably larger senate majority anytime soon.

[grumbler]

My concern, like that of many others, is that the "compromise" bill will be a step sideways, and not forward.  If it creates impediments to movement forward, it is a bill that should not be passed even if the re is a doubleplussecret promise to fix it later.  If it doesn't create impediments to future progress, then it should.

I just cannot tell at this point which is true.

[Sheilbh]

I'm with Faeelin--you are right that Harry Reid can't dictate what is in the bills that are finally passed just because he has 60 votes, but if they can't get results now, when can they? It is unlikely the are going to get an appreciably larger senate majority anytime soon.

But this isn't how the Senate's supposed to work.  It's not like parliament with a super-majority and you just win enough seats.  It's meant to be the conservative deliberative negotiating chamber.  It shouldn't be like this.

I hope that something gets passed - my understanding is that the current draft has all but one of Baucus's cost control ideas and has tax scheme that healthcare economists consider a million times better than the House bill, though I'm sure there's crap in there too. 

[Admiral Yi]

Don't understand the connection between your post and Fredo's.

[Sheilbh]

Don't understand the connection between your post and Fredo's.

Well the whole idea that the Democrats have 60 seats so should be able to do anything seems to fundamentally misunderstand what the Senate was designed for and even if that was enough I don't think it's necessarily something I'd encourage or support precisely because I think it would be turning the Senate into a slightly more difficult version of the House.

[Faeelin]

Don't understand the connection between your post and Fredo's.

Well the whole idea that the Democrats have 60 seats so should be able to do anything seems to fundamentally misunderstand what the Senate was designed for and even if that was enough I don't think it's necessarily something I'd encourage or support precisely because I think it would be turning the Senate into a slightly more difficult version of the House.

No Republican is willing to vote for this bill. While your idea is nice in theory, I think in practice it isn't happening.

[Admiral Yi]

Well the whole idea that the Democrats have 60 seats so should be able to do anything seems to fundamentally misunderstand what the Senate was designed for and even if that was enough I don't think it's necessarily something I'd encourage or support precisely because I think it would be turning the Senate into a slightly more difficult version of the House.

He said exactly the same thing.  Reid can't dictate a bill and whip in 60 votes.

[Strix]

My concern, like that of many others, is that the "compromise" bill will be a step sideways, and not forward.  If it creates impediments to movement forward, it is a bill that should not be passed even if the re is a doubleplussecret promise to fix it later.  If it doesn't create impediments to future progress, then it should.

I just cannot tell at this point which is true.

I agree. It's like sleeping with your girlfriend's sister because she won't put out. It might seem like a good compromise but it will make it that much harder to get your girlfriend to put out.

[Sheilbh]

He said exactly the same thing.  Reid can't dictate a bill and whip in 60 votes.

I didn't disagree.  I don't think that 'if they can't get results now when can they' is fair because the Senate's not meant to work like the House or a parliament.  It's designed to be a very different creature.

[Sheilbh]

My concern, like that of many others, is that the "compromise" bill will be a step sideways, and not forward.  If it creates impediments to movement forward, it is a bill that should not be passed even if the re is a doubleplussecret promise to fix it later.  If it doesn't create impediments to future progress, then it should.

I just cannot tell at this point which is true.

I have to be honest and maybe this is just an English thing, but I wouldn't do down a compromise.  They're not all bad.  I think I'd rather have a fudge that everyone's a little unhappy with than something that's more coherent but divisive.

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't disagree.  I don't think that 'if they can't get results now when can they' is fair because the Senate's not meant to work like the House or a parliament.  It's designed to be a very different creature.

Ah.  I think that is a case of misunderstanding on your part.  He wasn't talking about swift passage, he was talking about radical reform Democrats being at the peak of their powers and this is the best people should expect.