So does it really matter if the Senate side of the bill sucks?

so long as the House side is rocking.

It seems like, given the votes we have in the Senate for the finale simple majority. We can just get the Senate bill (however shitty it is) through so that it can go to conference, Nancy Pelosi can show up at conference with a motherfucking bulldozer, steamroll the Senate and put in the House version of the PO more or less intact, at which point it goes to a simple majority vote in the Senate, at which point Lieberdouch and the other "centrist" can suck it.

I think this is kinda the plan the Obama has set forth. I've heard from various people that in conference the House would have more power than the Senate to force through what they want. If that's so, that I can understand why Obama is willing to go along with this trigger bullshit for now to get Snowe to vote with us one more time before the final version comes. Chances are that trigger is getting tossed in conference. Once the bill gets to the final vote, a lot of centrists and Snowe too, might start the feel that awful feeling of being on the wrong side of history, if not, doesn't matter, we have the fifty votes for a strong PO + Biden. This shit is just about in the bag.

Then they are half way to meeting the strong public option in the house side. The final bill should be pretty close to what we want, especially if Pelosi can sway some conservadems in the Senate with the CBO showing a public option saves money.

Leaving committee, all bills bring individual mandates without guaranteeing every person will be able to satisfy them in affordable means with responsible plans.

I guess we can imagine the final product will be much better. Maybe it will be. But there is nothing to base that on. Right now, they are working with proposal that ensure there will be people forced to purchase insurance with no good options

I've watched the process more closely than some of the details of the plan.

has anyone put a basic chart out there where you can find your annual income and figure out what tax breaks you qualify for and where the cut off is (in relation to annual income) for being eligible to get into the PO? I think such a chart would be helpful for people who are struggling with the details.

does it suck that access to the PO will be limited? hell yeah. But is there a good chance that within the next few years it will be so popular that it will get expanded? History teaches us so.

I think we should compare this to fighting WW2 and say, yeah it sucks that today we can only take Omaha Beach and not Berlin, but taking Omaha Beach is the first step towards taking Berlin -the question is, will people continue to make this an issue until there are subsequent bills to fill in the holes.

You can find some of that information:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

"does it suck that access to the PO will be limited? hell yeah. But is there a good chance that within the next few years it will be so popular that it will get expanded?"

My main issue isn't that it'll be limited. Rather, its that it will be limited AND people will be mandated without that option (if things continue in this direction). That drastically changes the paradigm. This isn't an argument about the "public option" not being good enough, but rather, it not being adequate enough to mitigate the regressive effects of mandates. While I can totally understand people want to just pass anything, and improve it later, thats an easier position to swallow if not EVERYONE is affected by mandates. We know Medicare was expanded, but it wasn't introduced at the cost of fucking everyone else over in the meantime at the mercy of the private market that now has a guaranteed level of demand, despite the price points they set.

A lot of people are tossing insults, labeling, and using the "all or nothing" argument to deride opponents. This is so far from "all" that you gotta realize anyone participating in the debate already understands that. Look, the public option doesn't have to be perfect, and it most certainly doesn't have to cover everyone (anything is better than the status quo). But, when you also pair a negative provision like mandates to the status quo, then you now have to be very picky with what you accept as a compromise to the PO. A lot of people don't want to face that.

The same 60 will be needed for the senate bill and for the eventual conference bill.

The more the conference bill differs from what the senate passes first the more excuse for defectors from the 60.

Best to get them on record for the strongest possible senate bill.

We're talking about negotiating positions here. If the Senate bill is "sucks-lite" and the House passes a good bill, then that is OK. But if the House passes a mediocre bill and the Senate passes a bill that sucks, the final bill will be a moderately sucky bill.