If Brown wins, the Senate Bill probably is dead. But, real HCR lives, if Obama leads it.

The Senate Bill (which is not HCR) would die if Brown wins. I think it's unlikely the House will vote for the Senate Bill, despite intense pressure from some of the more conservative House leaders, and the DLC BlueDogs who run the Senate and the Political Department at the White House. But, if we lose the 60 vote majority, that ironically opens the door to real Health Insurance Reform ("HIR"), and would allow the Democratic Party to redeem itself.

The loss of the Senate majority would signal the death of the present Committee leadership in the Senate, and force the Democrats to craft passable legislation rather than the sort of Frankenstein Monster created under Reid and Baucus.

If the current Senate HCR Bill dies, that makes room for a series of smaller amendments -- such as lifting the anti-trust exemption for the health insurance industry and drug re-importation -- the good stuff that got chucked from the Senate Bill. We might even get Sen. Dorgan to reconsider leaving. Piece-by-piece passage of real insurance regulation may actually do more to keep costs down for the American people. Bills that do not involve appropriations could be passed in the Senate with 51 votes, and these more progressive measures will surely pass the present House.

But, defeat of meaningful HCR comes with a possible downside. If the House and more progressive people in the Obama circle don't get their act together, and lead a push for real reform of the health insurance industry, the whole Democratic slate is going to suffer a terrible reversal in November and in '12.

Without a public option, and real reforms, "HCR" is just another bail-out of big business. I think the American people understand that on a gut level. They also understand leadership, and will reward it, if the leadership will only allow that to happen.

progressives will fall in line to vote for the flawed, but still important, Senate bill. Blue Dogs represent the bigger problem. But I give the Senate bill an 80% chance of passing.

Think about it - if this occurs to me, some people on Capitol Hill may be mulling over this sort of scenario. But, it means going around or over some of the Senate leadership. I think we need to let them know our thoughts.

There are major limits on what can be done by reconciliation in the Senate. Doing the entire bill that way limits enormously what can be done.

What do you mean by "going around and over the Senate leadership"? Just who do you you think will have to lead anything like reconciliation? What you are doing is creating a bogus alternative that leads to the type of bill you want, but you are ignoring the limits of Senate rules.

That's the way I understand the Senate appropriations system works - that's how the Rethugs got so many laws passed. That, and emergency appropriations and Omnibus spending measures.

The Reconciliation process actually comes down to instructions issued by the Presiding Officer of the Senate (Biden) to Senate committees to reconcile the language of the Bill with the House version, and gives a date by which that must be done. That instruction could be written to bypass any hostile or uncooperative committee.

There have been many major pieces of legislation passed by Reconciliation in recent years that include budget and regulatory provisions. The decision about what's "extraneous" under the Byrd Amendent is also made by the Presiding Officer, the role of the Parliamentarian is merely advisory.

Reconciliation bills have included:

* Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-499 (1980)
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. 97-35 (1981)
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, Pub.L. 97-253 (1982)
* Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub.L. 97-248 (1982)
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983, Pub.L. 98-270 (1984)
* Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub.L. 98-369 (1984)
* Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), Pub.L. 99-272 (1986)
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub.L. 99-509 (1986)
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203 (1987)
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-239 (1989)
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-508 (1990).
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66 (1990).
* Balanced Budget Act of 1995, H.R. 2491 (vetoed December 6, 1995)
* Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 104-193 (1996)
* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33 (1997)
* Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-34 (1997)
* Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, H.R. 2488 (vetoed September 23, 1999)
* Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, H.R. 4810 (vetoed August 5, 2000)
* Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), Pub.L. 107-16 (2001)
* Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub.L. 108-27 (2003)
* Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171 (2006)
* Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), Pub.L. 109-222 (2006)
* College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-84 (2007)

just assessing likelihoods here.

HCR has become the new third rail.

but I'm informed enough to know that healthcare reform will be deader than the Dodo. If you think dems will go back and craft anything related to healthcare reform in the wake of such a sweeping defeat, you're living in an alternate universe. Just who do you see doing that? Harry Reid, who will be completely politically crippled by the defeat of HCR?

Nutso stuff. You need hip boots to wade through GD these days.

option to a terrible political defeat.

Like Marty McFly being called "chicken" if they don't.

because people would have been helped.

The 60 Dem votes in the Senate that is filibuster proof is 58 plus two - Lieberman and Sanders. No Committee chairmanships are at risk.

Will Rahm shed a tear?

Reid, they'll pour money into defending his seat because he's more corporate. They'll write off ND. Dorgan went from 20 points ahead to 20 points behind in 9 months because of this bill. The Blue Dog Dems will use this as an opportunity to "burn off the fat" and focus on entrenching themselves behind the corporate, large media market swing states of yesteryear. Hold onto those swing states using big business politicians, and 50 + 1 thinking like in the Clinton age.

I doubt it

or two committees to reach the floor.

We need to do something about the monopoly powers
of the doctor and hospital groups as well.
That is where a lot of price increases came from.

The good result from the last year is that people have
been made aware that health cost inflation matters.
It is not just about the uninsured.

But more people need to understand why health care
is so expensive. Cost of salaries, overuse of technology,
monopoly abuse, and the obesity crisis, etc..
Not just overpriced insurance.
If more people could understand about this
we'd have a better chance of useful reform.

Assuming we ever had a chance to talk it out,
without domination by the lobbyists.

it has been paid for already by industry.

if Brown wins, it passes unchanged.

if Coakley wins, there's a chance for changes through reconciliation. but the changes won't be meaningful.

there are other issues down the line which will be more affected by this election. however, i don't see anything like real health reform happening until health insurance bailout fails miserably in practice and needs to be gutted and fixed / replaced with single payer. hopefully a future congress will have the balls to do so some time in our lifetimes.

Concidering the requirement to have every last Dem Senator agree to be effective. Or find a Rep to replace any defecting Dem. Was that ever a realistic scenario for getting progressive legislation thru? 65 or 70 seats sure but really 60 seats is only a strong majority and not really a Supermajority. And we were probably kidding only ourselves thinking it would ever be able to function as one.

...is a coalition. The Republican party in the Senate is a monolith. You can split the first, you can't split the second.

if Brown wins the final bill will be much worse than if he loses.