Prediction: If Brown wins, the House will vote on the Senate bill verbatim.

And every progressive that needs to (in order for the bill to pass) will vote for it.

That is my prediction. I don't know whether it will pass, because it could still be the case that Blue Dogs will enter panic mode and kill it. This would be completely irrational, as most would have already voted for it and would just be sealing their fates by such an obvious flip flop (not to mention the general carnage at the polls if Democrats don't pass anything). But I think that it is highly, highly unlikely that a single progressive will vote against the bill (maybe save Kucinich) if that is the vote that kills the bill.

If this comes true, what it should show to those against the bill is that many on DU and elsewhere have seriously misjudged the relative benefits of this bill vs. the status quo. But judging by the posts over the past month, it will instead convince DU that progressives like Nadler and Schakowsky and Weiner are in bed with corporations or something else equally as silly. Oh well.

I could be wrong. Hopefully Coakley will win and we won't need to find out (and can pass all of the House modifications through the Senate).

I do not like the bill (senate) but i know i can't live with the status quo. So am i forced to live with "bad" because it's better than worse? Really need a Coakley win and a real reform package for everyone like me.

(because they're pretty much everywhere) but I feel compelled to point out that most here would not say that the representatives you mention, such as Weiner, are going to vote for the HCR bill because they're corporate sell-outs. Their votes are going to be out of loyalty to their President, who is, of course...

Well, nevermind. :)

:shrug:

very much anyway, right?

I hope Coakley gets something like a clean election.

the minor revisions that might happen are not worth the time, political capital, opportunity costs, and risk that it fails altogether.

You all can now officially add me to your list of "DLC Corporate Shills", well those of you who don't already have me listed there. But that is my opinion on the cost vs benefit case of further tweaking of HCR in the current climate. :)

Changes to excise tax, subsidies, etc., will be pushed through reconciliation or attached to the defense authorization bill. Or various appropriations bills.

Still, REALLY hoping for a Coakley win - a loss really will be pretty disastrous and even if we get health care reform through (in a watered-down form), the spin will be horrible and the rest of the legislative agenda will be terribly crippled.

and if so it will further amplify the current dynamic among constituencies in the Democratic base.

Best of both worlds- for Republicans and their supporters.

because there are changes President Obama wants to make.

He said this today in response to a comment by M. Halperin:
The House will have to accept the Senate Bill. Podesta
corrected him.

but the Senate bill would be passed first.

If they do reconciliation only, they can barely do anything. They can't ban discrimination on anything or change or add any regulations at all. The best they could do through a reconciliation-ONLY process would be to subsidize the current wild west private insurance market and expand Medicaid.

However, if they do reconciliation in ADDITION to the Senate bill, that could be a very powerful package. The Senate bill would have all the regulations and exchanges, and the later reconciliation bill would fix the excise tax and increase the subsidies (and remotely possibly have a public option).

But without the Senate bill reconciliation wouldn't work.

I know there are many things that can't be done that way but at least the things that do get passed would be more progressive than the current Senate version of the bill

They can't TOUCH regulations in reconciliation. So insurance companies will still be able to deny sick people coverage.

The best that could come out of reconciliation would likely be subsidies for private insurance in the current wild-west market without ANY additional regulation, along with an expansion of Medicaid. A public option could theoretically be enacted, but it would have to either discriminate against sick people or go bankrupt due to a adverse-selection-premium death spiral. That's why banning discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions is so important. Without that, no public option could ever survive.

Lots of options here...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/17/democrats-consider-backup-plan-for-health-care-reform/

"But multiple Democratic sources say this is unlikely. Even if House and Senate Democrats could reach a deal to meld their bills and pass them in the next couple of weeks – a big if – there would be a huge outcry from not only Republicans, but also an increasingly distrustful public.

For that reason, one senior Democratic source says some Democratic lawmakers who voted yes last time have already warned they would vote no if health care is voted on in advance of any swearing in of Brown."

You'd think they would want to vote on his life-long work in his honor - sad.

after Church.

The progressives appear to be ready to do a no net hook into the basket.