I wish they wouldn't use euphemisms!

And what's this "No American should be forced to give up the doctor they trust or the health plan they like" crap? "Give up"??? I don't even have the doctor or plan I like in the first place. (And I'm one of the lucky ones who has health insurance through my employer.)

What fricking universe are these people living in?

And why does anyone buy this crap? I mean, it sounds good, as long as you don't think about it very much or at all, but it doesn't describe the reality of American health care as most people know it.

If the feds won't do the right thing, at the very least we need to make sure that any plan that passes does not exclude the states from passing their own single-payer plans.

(My own State Senator, Eric Schneiderman, is a sponsor of a single-payer bill for New York State. I have to give credit today to the one local pol who isn't making me feel a bit dirty.)

Thus, the plans to use the budget reconciliation process:

House and Senate Floor Consideration: The Budget Act specifies that Congressional Action on reconciliation legislation should be completed by June 15. It provides specific expedited procedures and restrictions for floor consideration of reconciliation measures, to ensure timely completion. In the House, reconciliation legislation is normally brought from the Budget Committee to the Rules Committee, which grants a special rule governing floor consideration of the measure. Under the Budget Act and traditionally under these special rules no amendment is in order that would increase spending or decrease revenue levels relative to the base bill without equivalent decreases in spending or increases in revenues. In other words, amendments must be deficit neutral. Also, non-germane amendments may not be offered to the package absent a waiver from the Rules Committee.
In the Senate, total debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours, although the actual time for consideration of the omnibus package often exceeds this time limit set in the Budget Act. Motions and amendments may be offered and considered without debate at the end of this time period. There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase, or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order. The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor.

1. We can mark it on the way through. This will not end the issue, because keeping the insurance companies in business through subsidies and denying people more care through electronic medical records doesn't defuse anything.

2. If we preserve state options, there's hope there.

3. Maybe this is a case where nothing is better than something. It depends on how deeply fake the bill is (and I'm betting it's as deeply fake as can be).

They keep floating shit plans -- like Schumer's. That's the result of pressure.

on this subject over at the Orange Place, and was amazed that Obama's name was barely mentioned. Those who were deluded about what kind of health reform he would give us are just as deluded as ever - they are putting this all on Chuck Schumer. Will they never wake up?

...to prevent the public from actually knowing what's being done to them

...once I've stopped growling and snarling.

Also got to call Rangel, who was mentioned by Dean last night apparently. (Charlie's seemed kind of timid to me since last year's events. By which I mean, both the investigations into his personal finances, and the bullying from the Obama campaign because of his early support for HRC. Also, when I call his office I always seem to get aides who have no idea what I'm talking about, and I do not feel very confident that my message gets through intact. I'll have to follow up with a fax. Why couldn't all this be talking place after the semester ends???)

... with the insurance companies, and giving Eric Schmidt a few more billions for electronic medical records data conversion projects, so the insurance companies can "nudge" us to deny us care. No change is better than that change, because you know that while the mandate and the loss of privacy is forever, the subsidies for the mandate won't be enough in the first place, and will be reduced over time. Thank you, FKD!