NYTimes recommends Congress pass Senate version of HCR...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26tues1.html?ref=opinion

<snip>
If the Democrats quit now, so close to the goal line, the opportunity for large-scale reform could be lost for years. Meanwhile, the number of uninsured, currently more than 46 million, will keep going up and the cost of health care will continue to soar.

Many panicky Democrats see Mr. Brown’s win as proof that angry voters will punish them in November if they press ahead with reform. We believe that is a misreading of what happened and what’s possible.

<snip>
A poll taken in Massachusetts after the election by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health found that a surprising 68 percent of those who had voted said that they supported their own state’s plan, including slightly more than half of those who had voted for Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown, who promised to block reform in Washington, voted for his state’s program in 2006 and did not campaign against it this year. Instead, he argued that since Massachusetts’ citizens already have coverage, why should they help pay to expand coverage elsewhere.

<snip>
The most promising path forward would be for House Democrats to pass the Senate bill as is and send it to the president for his signature. That would allow the administration and Congress to pivot immediately to job creation and other economic issues. The Senate bill is not perfect, but it would expand coverage to 94 percent of all citizens and legal residents by 2019, reduce the deficit for decades to come, and create pilot programs to move the medical system toward better care at lower costs.


.........more

Or the person that posted it? :-)

is right twice a day.

They were recommending that the Prez either appoint Nanny Bloomers to his cabinet or use his "business sense" to develop economic stability in the country for over a year. They can't seem to wrap their brain cells around the fact that countries aren't businesses & don't have the same goals. I think the economic collapse helped them with that, since they stopped touting Bloomers as a freakin' genius. Now they're all pseudo-populist. But still full of crap.

if half ass reform is rejected now. I get no pleasure nor comfort from that thought. I, for example, am among those 46 million Americans who are without health care insurance. The so called solutions being offered in the Senate Bill are unaffordable to me no matter how strong the mandate is that I purchase them. I kept my home by dropping my health care insurance that I couldn't afford to pay the deductibles and co-pays on anyway if I ever tried to use it.

Reforms that create an illusion that we all can afford insurance if we just stretch a little harder, when we can't stretch harder and premiums keep rising faster than pay, only put off the day or reckoning when a critical mass of American voters admit that we really can't afford coverage under the American Health Care system, which is so at odds with all the rest of the industrialized world. That is the day when real heath care will come to America, that is when voters will insist upon it.

Just get it right the first time. No one is asking for perfect. We just want a good bill, not a choice between terrible and horrible. What happened to Yes We Can?

They are "deadbeats" according to Hillary Clinton, and

"people who technically can afford insurance but don't" are the
"source of the problem" afflicting the health care industry,

according to the AUTHORS OF THE BILL,

as they said in the Washington Monthly years ago talking about the math.