Will Obama Care Pass?

[Freeper]

SImple question and if you feel like it say why or why not it won't pass.

[Freeper]

Kick 

[Carl]

Real hard to say because I have no doubt that they are going to try to ram "something" through before the election cycle gets under way by late winter/spring.

If Republicans can hold firm and stall it so that the public can get the details then it will go down.
If the dems manage to roll them...

[Splashdown]

Something will pass.

And we're screwed.

[Schadenfreude]

Are the supremes going to uphold the constitution or no?

From the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.

An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.

The mandate's real justifications are far more cynical and political. Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health-care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. In effect, this mandate would be one more giant, cross-generational subsidy—imposed on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government's prior spending sprees.

[Schadenfreude]

Something lame will pass and it will blow up in the Dem's face. They are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

A girl can dream.  

[NHSparky]

Not as such--when debate opens up in the Senate and all the dirty little secrets of the bill start coming out, it won't pass.

Ditto if the abortion funding is put back in.

[Freeper]

I believe they will pass this. Dingy Harry will buy off votes until they can pass this bull shit.
If it ends up going before the SC I worry they will let it stand.

[NHSparky]

I believe they will pass this. Dingy Harry will buy off votes until they can pass this bull shit.
If it ends up going before the SC I worry they will let it stand.

With respect, I disagree--the Blue Dog Dems have already stated that if the Senate puts abortion funding into the bill, they'll vote against it when it goes back to the House for another vote.  It barely passed WITHOUT funding.  Put abortion funding in, and it's dead.

Which is exactly what I hope Dingy Harry pushes for.

[Hawkgirl]

Yes, it will pass...with a majority in the executive and legislative branch, it's a now or never thing for them.  They will pay for votes if they have to (landreau), but it will pass.

[NHSparky]

Yes, it will pass...with a majority in the executive and legislative branch, it's a now or never thing for them.  They will pay for votes if they have to (landreau), but it will pass.

Question is, are they willing to pay with their jobs in Washington?

[thundley4]

Question is, are they willing to pay with their jobs in Washington?

If it does pass, I think many will be voted out, if not in 2010then the next time.  The current bills are set up to start taxes and implementing cuts before any benefits will be seen.

[BlueStateSaint]

I said no, and here's why.  The Blue Dogs are going to realize that if this passes, they're absolutely screwed.  Yes, this bill sets up 100+ new government bureaus and the like, but the Blue Dogs want to keep their jobs.  More than likely, they won't.  But I digress.  If it passes, the Dems will lose up to 120 House seats in the 2010 midterms, and 12 to 15 Senate seats.  That's how badly public opinion will turn on them--and the lamestream media won't be able to stop it a bit.  The Obamessiah is too arrogant to realize what the Clenis did--that he had to triangulate on Republican issues if he was to win in 1996.  If he hadn't passed the legislation that Newt and the gang sent him when the Republicans won in 1994, it's entirely possible that Bob Dole, as mediocre a campaigner as he was, would have won the Presidency in 1996.

The Blue Dogs want to be able to (help) shape the legislation that come out of the Congress (in 2011 and 2012), and the only way they have any hope of being able to do that is to hold true to the threat to vote down any bill that contains abortion funding, or raises taxes too high, or any other reason that a Blue Dog can (and will) grasp for to vote against this.  (They actually have a better chance of being able to have their views heard if Republicans are in control, than Democrats.)  If the bill doesn't pass, still, 80 to 100 or so Dems in the House will be out, and the GOP may still be able to get nominal control of the Senate.

In any event, the Obamessiah will be buried in 2012, by his own arrogance, and will usher in a new era of Republican control, as there will be 60+ Republican Senators in the United States Senate, and the Dems won't be able to stop a thing.

[miskie]

I don't think it will -- However, I do think there may be a push to pass anything, call it Obamacare and declare victory.

[Hawkgirl]

Question is, are they willing to pay with their jobs in Washington?

Yes, it's a "take one for the team" type thing. 

[Baruch Menachem]

Politicians are job seekers first, last and always.  Congress is a good gig.  The population has shown that they are willing to toss bums out in a big way over the last 20 years. 
Given the job market today, do you want to piss on a job that has those bennies and that pay rate? The boss has made it clear that if you pass this, you are gone at contract renewal time. What can Nancy and Harry give you to replace it?

[DumbAss Tanker]

It looks pretty likely, but not yet an absolute lock.  The magical thinking in the accounting for it boggles my mind, how can anyone say this shit with a straight face?  It's like they think that after 10 years, there is no tomorrow.  Hell, maybe they are expecting that 1-in-5,000 asteroid hit chance showing on JPL's site in 2018 to be the real money shot, in which case I guess there really wouldn't be a tomorrow for at least one unlucky continent.
 
WTF kind of sense does it make to pay forward for four years before benefits begin, have them run for six more years, with an economic arterial wound from then on, and then pretend that it's deficit-neutral?  It is obvious it will burn through money at about twice the rate it can bring it in, even in the ridiculously-unlikely event that the projected revenues are as high as necessary to sustain it (which they won't be) and the projected expenditures are actually as programmed (Oh come on.  It is to laugh).

[bkg]

Politicians are job seekers first, last and always.  Congress is a good gig.  The population has shown that they are willing to toss bums out in a big way over the last 20 years. 

I really do disagree with this.

Given the job market today, do you want to piss on a job that has those bennies and that pay rate? The boss has made it clear that if you pass this, you are gone at contract renewal time. What can Nancy and Harry give you to replace it?

Most of the big-wigs are millionaires with no need for a job. And they get their salary for life anyway, as long as they've served 4(?) years total... so I don't see "having a job" as any motivator at all.