You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (438)

PLAYS: (568)

Don't we wish Orrin. Orrin Hatch pretends that the Republicans weren't involved in the process of putting together the health care bill. Sorry Senator but the ones who were completely shut out of the process were single-payer advocates. They weren't even allowed a seat at the table when Max Baucus was having his hearings. You and your party on the other hand were given ample opportunity to muck up the bill you refused to vote for later. I also can't believe he had the nerve to say the Senate passed the Health Committee bill when that's a blatant lie as well. The end result of that Senate bill was not what came out of the Health Committee and he knows it.

From Slate--This Is What "Bipartisanship" Looks Like:

What do the GOP amendments to this Senate health care bill actually say?

When the Senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee passed its health care bill Wednesday, the Obama administration hailed it as a "bipartisan" effort. No matter that it passed the panel on a strictly party-line vote, with all 13 Democrats voting for and all 10 Republicans voting against. It was bipartisan, administration officials explained, because it contained 160 Republican amendments. Republican senators said that characterization was absurd. After all, they said, most of the 160 amendments were technical, rather than substantive, changes. Lisa Murkowsi of Alaska told the New York Times that, while it was "pretty impressive" that 20 of her amendments were accepted, "they were all technical."

Who's right? There's no real way to resolve this debate without examining the content of these amendments, and the committee has yet to officially release them. But a Senate Republican source sent Slate a summary of many of the amendments, with a short description of each. (Download the Excel file here.) Disclaimer: This is an incomplete list. Of the 788 amendments filed, only 437 appear here. And of the 161 GOP amendments passed or accepted, we have confirmed only 80 as such. We hope to update the document as more information becomes available. Read on...

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (59)

PLAYS: (182)

From The Cafferty File:

CAFFERTY: The Republicans' victory in Massachusetts could very well be the final nail in the coffin for the Democrats' health care reform.

Exit poll data from one Republican firm shows the health care bill was the single most important issue to Massachusetts voters. This poll found 52 percent of those surveyed are opposed to health care reform; and 42 percent say they cast their ballot to help stop the overhaul.

Without the 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Democrats are left with a few options - none of them all that good... and most involving complicated legislative procedures.

The house could pass the bill that cleared the Senate as is - but several House Democrats are suggesting they won't go for that.

The House could also pass the current Senate bill and then try to fix it with a procedure that only needs 51 votes to pass the Senate.

Or the Democrats could scrap what they have and just try to pass a bare-bones bill that includes some of the most popular initiatives.

Several senators - including democrat Jim Webb - are calling for health care reform to be suspended until Scott Brown is sworn in.

And it appears President Obama may be getting the message... he says that the Senate shouldn't jam health care through before Brown is seated: "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

Here's my question to you: How should the Democrats proceed on health care now that they no longer have the votes to pass it in the Senate?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (39)

PLAYS: (114)

You can always count on Joe Lieberman to stick his finger in the Democrats eyes every time he gets a chance. Lieberman Calls for ‘Move to the Center,’ Doesn’t Rule Out Switch to GOP:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who’s done plenty in recent months to alienate Democrats, won’t improve his standing with his comments today to Fox News. Asked by Neil Cavuto if he would switch to the Republican Party if the GOP somehow took over the Senate in this year’s elections, Lieberman declared that he has “no idea.”

“That’s a big hypothetical a long away from now,” he said. “I was elected as an Independent but I remained a registered Democrat, so I’m with the Democratic Caucus.”

Today’s tight Senate contest in Massachusetts, Lieberman added, is indication that Capitol Hill has grown too partisan — and voters are fed up. “The independents are speaking loudly around the country today and they’re telling us, one, to get together here in Washington,” he said. “The second thing really is to do something about the economy and move to the center and worry about things that [independents] are worried about.”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (429)

PLAYS: (650)

They sure as hell don't mind disrespecting the will of the entire country though, do they? This smells of them finding an excuse to jam through the crappy bill passed by the Senate and telling the House they have to go along with it or it's a failure for the Democratic Party. Lawrence O'Donnell was on MSNBC and said Harry Reid would not seat Brown until Massachusetts submitted all of their paperwork for the election which is going to take a couple of weeks. So they would have two weeks to still try to reconcile the bill and make it better without worrying about Brown's vote if that's what they wanted to do.

The Republicans and Brown would be screaming like banshees but who cares. They can't be screaming much louder than they are right now. So either they want the Senate bill passed or they don't care if HCR passes at all IMO, but who knows. I guess we'll find out shortly as this plays out.

L. KING: John King is at Brown headquarters.

The last Republican from Massachusetts, John, you know it well, I guess, was Senator Ed Brooke, the black liberal Republican, was it not, in -- in, was that '78 -- '68 maybe?

J. KING: He was a moderate -- you're exactly right, Larry. Ed Brooke was a moderate Republican from Western Massachusetts. He served two terms. He left the United States Senate in 1979. And not since then has Massachusetts sent a Republican to the Senate.

But tonight, Massachusetts has not only decided to send a Republican to the Senate, Larry, Massachusetts is sending a very blunt message to President Obama and the national Democratic Party.

Scott Brown campaigned against the Obama health care plan, against the Obama stimulus plan, against what he calls "the spending and the taxing in Washington, D.C."

And voters in a state that Obama carried by 26 points have now, by a significant margin, decided to send a Republican, Scott Brown, to Washington.

And I want to echo the point, Wolf, just made. I'm told by two Republican sources high up in the Brown campaign that Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, called a short time ago to say she was conceding the race. I'm told she congratulated Scott Brown on the campaign and wished him well in the very consequential days he has ahead, Larry, as he goes to Washington now to take the seat that Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal icon, held for 46 years.

L. KING: One other thing, John. And we'll discuss it later and certainly at length in our -- in our midnight show, is he can't be sworn in, according to Massachusetts law, until the 29th.

Can the Democrats in the House and Senate try to do something before then on health?

J. KING: Can -- the answer to can they is yes. The answer to will they is don't be so sure. The White House has sent signals it would like to try to move fast. But many Democrats are saying that that would be dangerous, if you disrespect the will of the people of Massachusetts.

This election is being fueled by Independent voters, Larry. Independent voters are very powerful in many of the other key states and key races this year. Many Democrats are afford that if they act quickly in that interim period, they will cause a lot more trouble for themselves in the long-term than any benefit they would get in the short-term.

L. KING: Thanks, John.

I've been writing for weeks that the House needs to step up and improve the Senate health care bill in conference. They are co-equal branches and when a bill is to be merged, there are usually compromises made. Sen. Conrad screamed out on FNS and said that if the House tinkers with their precious bill, it won't pass.

CONRAD: It is very clear that the bill, the final bill, to pass in the United States Senate is going to be -- have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here. Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.

My sources on the Hill have told me that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes from progressives to pass the Senate bill as it stands. I know the White House doesn't want to play hardball now, but we do. What will Lieberman say if they do make changes to strengthen the bill? Will he be the man that killed health care reform to Americans?

mcjoan had an article posted yesterday that said the progressives appeared to be caving.

It's beginning to look like the House is going to cave into Lieberman and Nelson, too. TPMDC And co-chair of the Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva seals it.

In the interview, Grijalva confirmed that House Dems were beginning to discuss the idea of revising the Senate bill in conference to move up the implementation date for insurance coverage and make it more in line with the earlier date in the House bill. I asked Grijalva if he could support the bill if such a change were made, even if it lacked a public option or other similar concessions sought by liberals. "It would sweeten it somewhat," Grijalva said, "if they speed up the coverage mechanism."

He added: "That would be something I’d have to look at very closely."

Asked if he was suggesting that he’s open to supporting such an outcome, Grijalva answered in the affirmative, but insisted that he would have to evaluate the changes in conference before making any decision. He said House liberals would continue to push for a public component and a repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies. And he demanded that conference negotiations not merely "rubber stamp" the Senate Bill.

Moving up implementation dates would help, and that appears to be a House leadership might use as a "key arguing point" in the upcoming conference.

But today a new Politico piece paints somewhat different picture: House Dems: We won't roll over

House Democrats insisted Tuesday they have no plans to roll over for the Senate in upcoming negotiations on a health reform bill, even as they acknowledged it would be all but impossible to reinsert a public insurance option or force the so-called millionaire's tax on the Senate.

Either move would disrupt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s no-margin-for-error 60-vote majority. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team seem to have their sights set on lower-profile - but no-less important differences, like boosting affordability credits in the final bill and starting the insurance exchange a year earlier, which they did in the House.

Members will return the next week, and aides said they would still like to pass a bill by the State of the Union at the end of January or the beginning of February. But leadership staff in the House said that that doesn't mean they're prepared to just accept the Senate bill. {..}

"We want to move a bill by the State of the Union, but we want to do it because we're ready, not because we have to," an aide said.
Here are a few key points that can be fixed in conference, but please add your own...read on

Again, I've been writing that the House needs to stand up and be counted and they seem to be listening to our calls not to roll over for the Senate. I've contacted several members of the House for comment and will get back to you soon on that.

There's plenty of info on-line that explains what's wrong with the Senate bill, but here's a few key points. Add to the list in the comments.

* National exchange (rather than state exchanges)
* Public option
* Repeal anti-trust exemption
* Wealthy surtax, rather than middle-class insurance tax
* Better affordability provisions in House bill, including level of subsidies and Medicaid to 150% poverty.
* Repeal Stupak language.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (628)

PLAYS: (2905)

Well, it looks like everyone has their price. Sen. Sanders explains why he's going to vote for the health care bill even though it does not contain a public option.

From Sen. Sanders site--Release: Primary Health, Dental Care for 25 Million More Americans:

$10 Billion More for Community Health Centers will Revolutionize Care

WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

He said the additional resources will help bring about a revolution in primary health care in America and create new or expanded health centers in an additional 10,000 communities. The provision would also provide loan repayments and scholarships through the National Health Service Corps to create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals.

Very importantly, Sanders also said the provision would save Medicaid tens of billions of dollars by keeping patients out of emergency rooms and hospitals by providing primary care when then needed it.

Continue reading »

Digby and I have talked a lot about the mandate issue being presented by the health-care bill for months now, and a lot of great blogs have been hitting it too. A new poll done by Research 2000 for the PCCC and DFA says American voters will hate this bill if there are mandates and no public option.

If American voters aren't going to see any immediate pluses to their overall health care and are forced to pay into the mandates of the health care bill then how will the voters feel about the new outlay of cash? A good many will probably just pay the penalty instead of signing up and will be just as pissed, and that's coming from the left. The right-wing crazies will hate it even if it significantly helped their lives. so the debate has really focused on the differences on the left. We have captured the debate.

Duncan writes:

I know I'm a broken record on this subject, but I do think it's the thing most lacking from the insider conversations on HCR. Not that I really know, because I'm not an insider, but occasionally I get a wee sense of what's actually occupying staffers in various places. "Voters liking this thing" seems to be at best an afterthought.

It's sorta weird, really, because on most subjects it's the first thing they think of, both about the policy itself and the myriad imaginary attack ads that can be run based on the policy. If voters don't like this thing, it'll likely be repealed before most of it even takes effect, either because Republicans take over or because frightened members of a Dem controlled Congress do so. Sure, there's the optimistic view that it could be "made better" instead of repealed, but I'm not really feeling all that hopey.

No matter what the tosser Ron Brownstein says, liberal activists want health-care reform much more than Villagers can imagine, but we don't want it if it does nothing more than enrich insurance corporations and in the end never accomplish much of the goals that the defenders of the Senate bill are saying.

Lieberman and the Villagers are more interested in protecting the DC insider crowd than they are reforming health care for America.

And to show how lacking his argument is, Brownstein tries to paint us as the racists. Brownstein should check out a few teabagger rallies. And to dismiss the complaints we have as "ideological" shows how petty the elitists truly are.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (71)

PLAYS: (304)

From MSNBC's Morning Meeting, Dylan Ratigan loses his temper with Debbie Wasserman Schultz when she starts spinning about what a good bill HCR is going to be but doesn't answer his question about why Wall Street is so happy and all the health insurance stocks are going up. Ratigan tweeted that he will apologize for losing his temper but not for "challenging lies and misinformation".

Here's the terrible thing about the administration and Reid allowing this health care bill to be watered down so badly by the ConservaDems in the pocket of the insurance companies. Now you've got someone like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who you know probably doesn't like what's going on any more than most of us do being forced to try to defend this crap sandwich to the likes of Ratigan, and not being able to. She really did not look like she was prepared for this interview at all. I think Ratigan was extremely rude, but I don't disagree with his points.

Wendell Potter followed up on the phone and gave him some plain spoken answers about why the stock market is so happy. Then he let hack KT McFarland follow up and act like Republicans aren't as happy about this as the insurance industry. They get to sit back and play populists and let the Democrats own this mess.

Eli over at FDL has more on this--What’s The Matter With Democrats?:

Not only have Obama and the Senate Democrats adopted pro-corporate policies that will hasten their own political demise, but they have allowed the Republicans to keep their hands clean and pretend to oppose legislation that they would have happily championed a few years ago.

[...]

Unless Obama and the Democrats pull their heads far enough out of their corporate donors’ asses to hear the transpartisan outrage brewing outside the Beltway, the 2010 and 2012 elections will be very very bad for them. They will reap all of the pent-up rage and resentment that was aimed at the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, and we know how that turned out.

Given Rahm's statement to Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, the administration is looking pretty tone deaf these days--Rahm Emanuel: Don’t Worry About the Left. Not helpful Rahmbo. We've got Axelrod trying to calm down left wing bloggers one day and Rahm Emanuel telling us to stick it the next. Talk about mixed messages.

John Cole finds Chuck Todd wanking away on Twitter.

Shorter Chuck Todd: It’s only big news if the Democrats fail!

I guess he didn’t pick up on the fact that if they had failed to get the 60 votes, HCR would, for all intents and purposes, be dead in the short run, as the Republicans would filibuster. That is why this is such a big deal- they have overcome the obstructionism of the GOP, and the debate can advance.

Although in fairness to Chuck, he may be more concerned with why Obama didn’t reach out more to President McCain. Not to be too subjective, or anything.

*** Update ***

Can anyone imagine the feeding frenzy for the next two weeks if they had failed to get 60 and advance the debate? Can you imagine the Sunday shows tomorrow? Can you imagine all the headlines speculating if Obama was a lame duck? “Senate fails to advance health care reform. Is Obama’s entire agenda at risk?” and “Obama’s signature legislation killed in Senate. Can he recover?” and “Republicans, spurred by sagging Obama poll numbers and grass roots support from tea party, stop Obama administration in their tracks.”

And Chuck Todd would be leading the goddamned charge with that crap.

Chuck Todd explains in Twitterific form what the Village really thinks. Does he not understand how the legislative process works? Nope. Does he remember that it was a Blue Dog Royal Senator named Max Baucus that helped pass Bush's tax cuts and medicare drug plan:

Some Democrats think Mr. Baucus betrayed the party in 2001 when he supported President George W. Bush's tax cuts, and in 2003 when he was one of two Democrats to help Republicans pass a Medicare prescription drug plan.

If George Bush had failed at getting these through, would Todd be questioning the conservative movement? Nope. They would be telling America that since they elected Bush, the Democrats were traitors to America. But when a Democrat is President all the Villagers look forward to is failure.