2013

I agree it should be established immediately, but I dont think there is enough political will to push for that.Bringing the date forward by a year or two in a subsequent spending bill would be a smart move. Hell, attach such an amendment to a defense spending bill and watch in awe as the republicans can’t vote no. Taste of their own medicine.

The 2013 thing is also very dangerous politically – it basically will turn the 2010 and 2012 elections into referendums on health care reform without a chance for people to see how it’s actually working or not. There will be plenty of stories about what the Mandates will cost, though, and some states will be pre-opting out.Like Bob said, a lot can happen – but I’m not seeing a clear path to second term for President Obama. He’s lost some degree of progressive support and a good number of independents already. On the other hand, I’m not sure the Republicans can nominate anyone sane. I hear Jeb Bush’s name floated.

ya know…thinking about it, I’m surprised they didn’t give up everything we wanted since the world is ending in 2012…The implementation date needs to be hammered home. A lot of people are unaware of how long it will take & the waiting time before an employer can get in on the exchanges, etc. Years. It’s years. Many of them.

Unfortunately Bob, you know republicans will not give up until they squash this thing, even if it is in 2013 or later. I’m sure they have it all mapped out by now.Lee, I just can’t imagine Obama losing. He won by at least 9% in states adding up to 270 electoral votes, and most of those were much more of a landslide. If Jeb Bush runs, he’s toast. Another Bush, you kidding me? Romney is probably their best bet. Their primary will be such a joke, they will not learn from their NY-23 fiasco, mark my words.

If Obama loses, it’s going to be because he tied his Presidency to getting ‘a health care bill’ without trying to get a good health care bill. Here’s what people are experiencing now and it’s not really going to be a vote getter…From How the Blue Dogs Raised My Insurance Premium by 14%Anthem, the giant insurance company, told us that the expected premium increase for my company’s health insurance (we provide insurance for everybody) will be 14%. We got no additional coverage, just higher rates.This is profound evidence that the insurance industry won the health care debate. The public and taxpayers lost big. There is little chance that something better will come out of the Senate.

I think they would vote no. They know they are immune to the same bullshit “You Hate The Troops” charges that they hit the Democrats with in every election. In fact, it enhances their “victimhood” status. “We love The Troops, and want to give them everything they need, but the Democrat Party is playing politics with our brave men and women! Why do they hate The Troops?!?!“I think, at the risk of invoking the appearance of You Know Who, that if we get the bill passed into law now, the Democrats will have the political capital and will to enact major changes to the legislation. To clean it up, if you will. Stupak has to go (and not just his C-Street masturbatory amendment, but him as well), the public option has to be expanded, the dates have to be pushed up.Aw shit. I just felt a cold breeze…

Oops – link got eatenhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kieschnick/how-the-blue-dogs-raised_b_350997.html

I swear just typing something optimistic brought him right out from under his fucking bridge.

Why is punitive consequences for insurers bad? Do you mean employers?

I have been thinking about this Stupak thing a lot.The fact is that abortion is legal. Lots of people have moral objections to it. There are lots of things that are legal that people don’t like, say cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption.We don’t restrict access to cigarettes and alcohol, except to minors. In fact we spend a lot of money trying to make sure that minors never start smoking or drinking.In the US we tax things that we don’t like in order to discourage use. Again, take cigarettes as an example. We don’t tell people that they cannot smoke – rid shelves of cigarettes – we just make it costly to smoke. And, theoretically, we use some of that money to discourage teens from smoking.If people don’t like elective abortions and want to discourage their use, they should be taxed like everything else that we don’t like. We could then use the money from the taxes to teach teens how to avoid abortions (through the use of contraception for example).This approach would bring the discussion of how much to tax elective abortions out into the open for an honest debate. Conservatives would say 100%. That is what they are saying now by requiring that women pay for their own abortions rather than having them covered by insurance. Others would say zero. We would have a robust discussion rather than using these back door tactics to deny women access to their legal right to an abortion.Of course conservative would hate this because they hate taxes and contraception education for teens. But that should not matter. They are currently advocating for a 100% tax and we should be talking about that fact.Will a tax be fair to poor people. No. But it would be fairer than denying them the ability to purchase insurance with abortion coverage.

ec, the problem is that these pro-lifers really truly believe in their hearts that abortion is murder, plain and simple, and you can’t talk them out of it. They’re self-righteous hypocrites but they get an equal vote. Cigarettes and alcohol kill too, they kill actual living breathing human adults, and all too often, children.All the logic in the world won’t get through to them. There’s nothing these people hate more than abortions and taxes, I don’t think you could get them to agree to taxing abortion.

eljefejeff,But they already are taxing abortion.This debate needs to be brought out of the depths of emotional response into the bright light of legal and economic discourse.I cannot be the first person to have thought about this. There must be some cool headed economist out there somewhere that has already proposed such a tax discussion.

I disagree that the president is already a one-time president. First, it’s way too early to determine that. The American public’s memory is about a week long. Once healthcare is passed, the big fight will move to something else. Besides, a president doesn’t lose a majority just for not creating a perfect health care bill or else Clinton never would have served a second term. Obama’s re-election will hinge, like most, on the economy and on jobs. First, if unemployment doesn’t take a major dip before the midterms, that could mean the obstructionist party grows, which would mean that the last two years of the Obama presidency nothing at all will get done–not even imperfect policy, God forbid.If the economy picks up steam sooner than expected and if jobs grow, Obama will be fine. In addition to that, if he handles DOMA and DADT like he should, he’ll have a gay ARMY on his side. Oh, and don’t forget the Hispanic population who is being consistently demeaned by the right. And don’t forget that Obama will be able to say he insured MILLIONS of children with SCHIP in addition to the health care reform.Yeah, it’s way too early to make any calls about his political future and basing it only on this issue is inaccurate.

Lee writes:>>>>The 2013 thing is also very dangerous politically – it basically will turn the 2010 and 2012 elections into referendums on health care reform without a chance for people to see how it’s actually working or not

Stranahan:>>>>If Obama loses, it’s going to be because he tied his Presidency to getting ‘a health care bill’ without trying to get a good health care bill.That’s your kneejerk bias about healthcare talking. Not even a failure to get healthcare will necessarily doom the president’s re-election chances (the midterms are another story). The Clinton failure didn’t hurt his re-election chances, and he was overall less popular than President Obama. Only a backslide in the economy or a serious scandal could derail his chances.

@ec: That’s the point. You’re not the first person to have thought of this. But the back door tactics are what the opposition wants and needs. The point of amendments like this, and restrictions like this, is not to make abortions less desirable or more difficult. It is to get rid of them all together, full stop. If you’ve ever engaged in this kind of logical debate with someone with this mindset, you’ll know that your logical argument is not met with a logical defense, but with a tangent not even related to the topic at hand. Logic will not prevail with the kind of people who would support the Stupak amendment.

A lot can happen in three years… including 144 people dying every day for lack of health insurance. (That’s 157,680, assuming the rate doesn’t go up – as it’s likely to, with ever more people unable to afford the premiums or co-pays.) It’s almost like they need to be dying on the Capitol steps to make this tangible to those who are so concerned that we have moving too fast!

Actually, Lee, postponing putting the PO into effect until 2013 is a purely political move, and i predicted they would do something like it, as well.”We passed health care reform!!!!”"Never mind that the most contentious part is not in effect yet…don’t look at that. Look at this! We passed reform!”They are postponing it because they fear the actual economic impact of their own bill, and fear the Republican’s ability to exploit it. They are going to squeeze this bill for everything they are worth. They will only shout out “we passed reform!”, and won’t have to deal with the consequences of that reform until after the next Presidential election.Like I said…NOBALLS

Three cheers for PPP —- one cheer for each P!

some states will be pre-opting outI’m pretty sure that states can’t opt-out until a year after implementation. That’s what was said a few months back, at least.So…how soon before the so-called progressives start asking for donations for a candidate to be named later to run against Obama? And will they ever wise up & realize that if they split the Democratic party they’ll succeed only in electing a Republican?Have you learned fuck-all from history?? (rhetorical – it’s obvious you haven’t)

Well….Ed Schultz is on the air now saying that one reason why the Insurance Enrichment Bill will not go into effect until 2013 is because the health insurance companies need time to prepare for their 40 million NEW customers that the Insurance Enrichment Bill is going to give them!

No clear path to re-election for Obama? Are you kidding me? How about the Republicans being entirely unable to elect someone that isn’t a wingnut. Im sure a few moderate republicans will run, but they will be drowned out by the loud noises of teabaggers. I could see the next election being an even bigger landslide than 2008. I think indepedent and libertarian candidates will also siphon a lot of votes away from the republican nominee, but not from Obama.Im sorry, your wet dream of Obama being crushed by progressives is not going to come to fruition. He is the president of the united states, not the president of the far-left.And anyone who thinks we will still be talking about Healthcare Reform in 2011 is out of their mine.Get RealThe loud noises generated by immigration reform debate will dwarf the healthcare debate.

The recent election shows the Democrat base isn’t fired up and ready to vote. There’s visible disappointment from both Democrats AND independents.Greenwald has a great piecehttp://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/14/criticism/index.htmlHere’s part of what it says…”If anything, when it comes to the most powerful political official on the planet, it’s best to err on the side of excessive checks and criticism rather than excessive deference and trust. Presidents have no shortage of people and institutions loyally devoted to their message and agenda.”

Stranahan:>>>>The recent election shows the Democrat base isn’t fired up and ready to vote.Democrat base? You meant ‘Democratic base’ right?