Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Health care winners and losers?

With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) having (apparently) secured the 60 Democratic votes he needs to pass the health care bill, we are hard at work on our winners and losers from this massive legislative fight.

The final product will appear in this space on Monday but we'd love to have your thoughts on who (or what) won and lost in the health care debate. The comments section awaits.

(Note to thread hijackers: this post has NOTHING to do with either a) President Obama's birth certificate or b) former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin so let's try to keep the comments section free of those topics.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 19, 2009; 3:31 PM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic incumbents beware!
Next: White House focuses on history-making aspect of health care

Comments

The very existence of a political party hangs in the balance. Do the Republicans intend to kick away their own stool, and hang the party in the balance?

==

I'd say the jury's been back on that question for the better part of a year.

If trying to filibuster the defense appropriation wasn't evidence enough, what are you holding out for?

They've lost elections before, they've been infantile in defeat before, but this time they lost to a man who is not white and it seems to have driven them mad. David Brooks says that it will take two or three successive *presidential* losses before they start thinking in terms of running the country again instead of playing electoral politics, and I don't think he was factoring in the intensity of their racist rage.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 22, 2009 12:55 AM | Report abuse

"Deliberations to reconcile the House and Senate versions start after the holidays .. I hope the concessions for Lieberman and Nelson get stripped out without losing their votes, but I would be just as happy to see it passed as is and fixed later once AIPAC Joe is wandering around trying to figure out what landed on him. Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite"

Therein lies the real question, or, actually, the real questions:

Who will be on the reconciliation committee? What will they concoct from the elements available to them? Will it be palatable enough for 60 Democrats to allow it an up or down vote?

When the reconciled bill makes it past the final threatened filibuster, gets its pass with 54 votes in the Senate and 230+ votes in the House, gets signed by the President, will the Republicans then admit defeat and begin to allow Congress to try to work together, or, having been denied their attempt to "embarrass the President" will they pick a new Waterloo to try to make him look like a loser and continue to demonstrate that no matter how motivated, a peacemaker can't make peace when one party has resolved on unending war?

The very existence of a political party hangs in the balance. Do the Republicans intend to kick away their own stool, and hang the party in the balance?

Posted by: ceflynline | December 21, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

G&T, I wonder what Gov agency or subsidy pays your livin expenses. Defending the American Bar association ( Democrats ) the way ya do. Or are you independently wealthy where you dont need to worry about the Country.

==

I stopped there. Inappropriate capitalization is a dead giveaway.

I'm a hard-working non-wealthy professional. I've received unemployment for a few months at a time between jobs, I once received welfare for a few months when I broke my back in an auto accident, other than that, never a dime, and not on any government payroll.

Your "they're all crooks" civic outlook is childish.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 21, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

G&T, I wonder what Gov agency or subsidy pays your livin expenses. Defending the American Bar association ( Democrats ) the way ya do. Or are you independently wealthy where you dont need to worry about the Country. I am a registered independent I lost my faith in Democrats in late 70's and Republicans in Late 90's and been holding my nose when voting ever since. We have had the same politicians running this country since the 60's. Only a few token changes here and there. You talk like Medicare, Social Security, Amtrak, Post Office, etc are solvent agencies Wait a few more years and see what happens. I've seen our so called Saviors ( Republican and Democrat Politicians )more than once claim to save each of these agencies from bankruptcy, guess how? All the time increasing their power and numbers (gov employees and subsidies) , pay, benefits and our taxes, to pay for it. Wait till this Healthcare Dream and Cap and Trade Kicks In and see what happens !!!

Posted by: donaldshu | December 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Thrown out by plain old Americans

==

Oh, you mean "below average Joes."

Sorry but there aren't enough of them.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 21, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

By whom, the Republicans? Selling ... what?
Competence? Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite

Thrown out by plain old Americans. They're Independents, Conservatives, Republicans, and yes, even many Dems who know they were sold a bill of goods. They know that passing Healthcare, in the midst of the greatest unemployment rate (Pls spare me the "this is Bush's fault" speech) since the depression. This is simply something that should not have been done and shows the real agenda of liberals. Cram as much socialism thru as you can knowing the days are short :)

Posted by: donttread2010 | December 21, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I cannot wait for November 2010 because the Dems will be thrown out in droves

==

By whom, the Republicans?

Selling ... what?

Competence?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 21, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Reid stated yesterday that 92% of Americans will see a decrease in their health care premiums. I doubt that but for arguments sake, let's say that we do see a slight decrease in premiums. What he does not mention is that we will see a huge increase in taxes to pay for this liberal tax and spend ponzi scheme and the net effect is that we will all perpetually pay more. I cannot wait for November 2010 because the Dems will be thrown out in droves, starting with that bottom dealing Reid. Oh yeah, btw, the CBO, as reported in the Post today, admitted that they goofed and 500Billion dollars in estimated savings just vaporized. Details, details...

Posted by: donttread2010 | December 21, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Taking Back Our Nation God’s way

==

Say hi to your imaginary playmate for me

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 21, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

We will all be losers if this passes and we say nothing. This does not solve the health problem.

We can complain, or TAKE BACK OUR NATION – They would know we have a real option besides November 2010, perhaps that will change their vote.

US CONSTITUTION GAVE US RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR NATION. See complaints and goals to restore original intent and dissolve tyranny, corruption, take-over, and fraud in our government.
http://www.divine-way.com/ taking_back_our_nation.html

I sent a Twitter: Taking Back Our Nation God’s way with our Constitution at http://www.divine-way.com

Posted by: MarieDevine | December 21, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Woemn lost. Hyde has been expanded to the point that not only does it prohibit the actual procedure of abortion paid for by Federal money, but now it also prohibits women for paying with benefits, and insurance companies offering benefits, for the procedure entirely with private money, while requiring women to pay all taxes and full rates for policies. This is the first time that means other than Federal money have been used by the Federal legislature have been the cue for the bar, and is the precursor of more. The first of many things that will be barred to women not because it does pay with Federal money but because it 'might' in the views of woman haters lead to that happening at some point in the future. And the first expressly to require contracts for women and men to be different, and the women's less favorable, despite their long minority and discriminated against status. A foul thing.

Posted by: Christy1947 | December 21, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Big winners:

The Health Insurance Industry. They tens of millions of new customers delievered by the government.

The GOP party for stopping the public option and delivering new customers to the health insurance companies.

The LOsers.

The American people when their premiums go up to cover the new mandates on the insurance industry and no public option competition. Covering pre existing conditions and other mandates while good are going to be passed on to the policy holders not the stockholders.

The Democrates for failing to show leadership on the issues and selling their souls to get any change at any cost.

Posted by: tginmn | December 21, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I've been hoping *I* would win. I'm losing my job, so I've been watching closely for an extension of the COBRA subsidy.

Posted by: dognabbit | December 21, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I want my senator to get the same deal as Nelson.

Otherwise, he should withhold his vote.

Posted by: tru-indy | December 21, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Been reading a lot regarding this health care issue and found this Great site that covers daily stories about Pres. Obama , his admin,the health care of course and many others...

http://www.lipmantimes.com/

Posted by: obwatch | December 21, 2009 2:47 AM | Report abuse

How much money did the Senate spend tonight ???


What is the total amount ??


What are the tax increases ??


The difference is 1.3 TRILLION, right?


And $500 Billion of that is from cuts from Medicare ???

Just so characters like Bondosan can "change the narrative?"

Bondosan said it between the lines


The American People are at a LOSS


And the democrats are gambling this will bring them some extra votes down the road.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 21, 2009 2:31 AM | Report abuse

Bondosan is probably some administration hack.


Please note the total focus on partisan politics - the dems this, the republicans that.


Please also note the complete lack of regard for how the American people will do under this health care plan.

Also please note the complete lack of any regard for the finances of this plan, how it will be paid for in the long run.


NO - it's all about the democrats "changing the narrative" so they can win elections -

Well, I have news for this person who obviously cares little for the American people beyone getting their votes - tax cuts ARE the solution to the problem - I can assure you that tax increases ARE NOT any part of the solution.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 21, 2009 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Hey, CC! Just saw that you're doing a chat on Monday. Looking forward to it.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 21, 2009 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Well said, Bondosan.

@G&T & JakeD - If you're ever in the DC area, shoot me a line. Tamales for JakeD; dinner at Present for G&T.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 21, 2009 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Remember when the feds bailed out GM on condition that Wagoner be given the push, and the 'baggers were hoarse with rage that the government interfered with business. They were just livid.

Funny how we don't seem to be hearing mucn about market distortions arising from forcing the insurance companies to honor their contracts.

Isn't the imposition of arbitrary social values to business a distortion? Shouldn't we let market forces be the arbiter of whether or not welching on one's bets is acceptable? After all, it will correct, will it not?

</sarcasm>

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Still stuffed at Nhà Vàng và Tanzanite with thịt kho tố and lotus shoots over a ton of rice and the imcomparable Wei Pau Super Hot.

Era muy delicioso.

Deliberations to reconcile the House and Senate versions start after the holidays .. I hope the concessions for Lieberman and Nelson get stripped out without losing their votes, but I would be just as happy to see it passed as is and fixed later once AIPAC Joe is wandering around trying to figure out what landed on him.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of getting everything we would really, really like.

It would be great if Senators Lieberman and Nelson were replaced by men or women who were far more liberal, but as Donald Rumsfeld might say, "you pass legislation with the Congress you have, not the Congress you might want or wish to have at a later time."

And as long as I'm mangling quotes, let me mess with Winston Churchill: "this health care bill is the worst kind of reform... except all the others that have been tried (in the United States Congress at least)."

No one on this board has the slightest idea how all this will play out. I suspect that it will be a good beginning. If the mandated premiums end up being too high, Congress will get an earful (as they do whenever seniors feel their Social Security or Medicare is threatened).

The bottom line: If the legislation passes, Obama and the Democratic Party will be big winners over time, because they will have changed the narrative. They will have proven that they can govern, and that major legislation can still get done.

The Republican party (whose governing philosophy for a generation has been that government is bad and tax cuts are the solution to all problems) may win some seats in November, but they'll remain the minority party for quite some time to come.

For some historical perspective, I strongly recommend Gail Collins' NYT column from Saturday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/opinion/19collins.html?_r=1

Posted by: Bondosan | December 20, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

I listened to MtP on C-SPAN this afternoon (caught half of Fox and most of CNN as well). My impression was that Dr. Dean walked back from his comments during the week. I didn't care for the panel, but then I'm not a fan of Tavis Smiley. The panel today mainly took turns at taking pot shots at the bill from the left and the right.

Well, I'm back to tying tamales. We're make a big batch at Casa de Blade!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 20, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Natalie wins the $1 million on Survivor: Samoa.

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Stein's bribe?

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Mr Steins bribe is actually legal.Since when can a state be exempt for paying what other states will be forced to pay.Not to mention pay more because we would have to pick up his states tab as well.I would think this would be unconstitutional let alone unethical."Karma" takes care of all things.Do you know what that means Mr Stein?..you sold out your country by trying to benefit your state in hopes to keep your office.Hell has a special place for you...

Posted by: Gvngman | December 20, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

For the record:

"... this post has NOTHING to do with either a) President Obama's birth certificate or b) former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin so let's try to keep the comments section free of those topics."

I have complied with said request ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 10:44 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Did you catch Dr. Dean on MTP this morning?

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

You re scum. Can't even follow a simple instruction. There is no more vile and idiotic subhuman loser than you on this site.

==

I suppose I could wring a handkerchief about posting propriety and personal attacks but I'd rather limit my outrage to noting that before I convulse in agony over anything like this, I note the source.

As for the post, mentioning a prime loser in the context of a thread about winners and losers is not in any way hijacking the thread. Sorry.

The One won one. Must be a really bad time for you. Go take it out on one of the nurses, they get paid to listen, since your one hour a month with the doctor is probably weeks away.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 10:20 PM | Report abuse

The claim of taking over 1/6 of the economy doesn't hold. Of the 17% of the economy which is health care, the majority is funded or run by the government. Even IF there were a single payer system on offer (which there isn't), it would be a takeover of morel like 1/12th of the economy. For my part, we should study systems such as the Swiss and French, because that's what we're headed towards, not the NHS model.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 20, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

The whole process is out of control.

This will escalate.

==

TIME, PLEASE!!

==

"On abortion

On illegal aliens

On the fiscal situation, not to add one dollar to the deficit."

==

Distraction

Distraction

See CBO data

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a LOSS because he could have been concentrating on the economy all year long - and because he has lost people this year that he will never get back.


Obama has betrayed the Seniors and they will be hard-pressed to support him.

Obama has switched many seniors from "stay home from the polls" to "vote against the people who voted to cut Medicare."


Obama has lost the confidence of many many people - confidence he will never get back.


Obama is silly - a one term President who will never learn.


Some other President and some other Congress is going to have to deal with the TOUGH QUESTIONS which Obama and this Congress has been TOO IRRESPONSIBLE TO EVEN CONSIDER.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 20, 2009 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama's address before Congress - Chris would you please review that to see if Obama really was lying -


On abortion

On illegal aliens

On the fiscal situation, not to add one dollar to the deficit.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 20, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

The American Political Center is a loss here too.

It is unbelievable.


In the past year, in this fight over health care, both parties are ready to destroy their wings which are closest to the political center.

You can say what you want - but the lunatics have taken over the asylum.


Obama is to blame, obviously, because in his platform he made promises which were a complete fraud.

Nancy Pelosi is ready to toss the blue dogs in order to get her agenda - not a wise move - but it is more like she is forcing them to walk the plank at sword-point.

The Republicans and the teaparties - one simply does not see the moderate Republicans coming out on top of that one.


I don't know how this gets repaired - and I don't see how the American people come up better off with all this never-ending warfare in sight.


A massive government program like this needs bipartisan support to survive - it could get repealed in a very messy process down the road.

Obama lied about the abortion portions of this health care plan - that is now clear.


He also lied about the illegal aliens portions of this health care plan.


NEVER have I seen so much lying and misrepresentations when the nation talks about major legislation in Congress.


NOTHING JUSTIFIES THAT. THESE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE JUSTIFIED TO LIE BECAUSE OF BUSH OR THE IRAQI WAR - THAT SOMEHOW THEY ARE NOW ENTITLED ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF THEIR MINDS.


The democrats even believe they are entitled to blow out the budget on health care because they disagreed with the Iraqi War - even though a majority of democrats in Congress voted FOR the war.

The whole process is out of control.


This will escalate.


I think we should have one tax rate for conservatives - and one for liberals - let the liberals pay for all these programs - that is the only way to settle this issue.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 20, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

* Sarah Palin, who spread her legs for the oil companies and insurance companies in her quest for fame and, as in NY23, has lost everything she puts her urine-mark on.

You re scum. Can't even follow a simple instruction. There is no more vile and idiotic subhuman loser than you on this site.

Posted by: snowbama | December 20, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

(walking around vomit on sidewalk)

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

The ped has arrived and the blog deScends into shirt off dirty dancing with hot tub stories and recipes. Too much information as usual.

Get a life loser. It is not essential to air your views on every single last post on this thread.

Would it shock you to find out we all find you petulant, boring and pitiful.

Posted by: snowbama | December 20, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

The American People are the real losers here - because this massive government program IS NOT PAID FOR.


Seniors Lose - because they are going to take an immediate $500 Billion cut in Medicare.


What is going to happen is this program is going to OPEN UP A MASSIVE FINANCIAL HOLE IN THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.


Someone else is going to have to clean it up somehow.


It is amazing how IRRESPONSIBLE THE DEMOCRATS ARE - they constantly say lets jam something down the throats of America now and work out how to pay for it later.

This is what you get when someone is elected with NO ECONOMIC OR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE EXCEPT FOR BUYING COCAINE.


THEY GO ON A SPENDING BINGE - and they never ever worry about how they are going to pay for the mess.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 20, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

LOSERS: American Jobs. The same people that gave us and operate Social Security, Medicare , Amtrak, Postal Service, etc, are now going to increase control by another 18% of our economy, run it as efficient as the previous mentioned items. And people wonder why jobs are moving overseas?

==

"... and some fell on rocky ground"

Dunno what your beef is with Social Security and Medicare, and the Post Office?!? Oh, that's right, it's just the dying echo of some Reagan applause line. Gummint bad, pry-vit secter good. Magic of the marketplace.

Hope you had a nice nap Rip but there've been some changes you need to catch up on. Anyway.

Medical coverage for 30 million more people is going to cost jobs? Who knew! I guess that's the same kind of thinking that says cutting taxes increases revenue .. take what mathematics and logic tell you, deny it, and suddenly you're an authority among Republicans.

As for jobs going overseas, well, that's because laws passed by Republicans created incentives in the tax code to follow the allure of cheap foreign labor, without regard for its effect on the American worker. All anyone had to do was work the word "free" into it somewhere, dangle it before Republican lips and they struck at it like decorticated octupi.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

LOSERS: American Jobs. The same people that gave us and operate Social Security, Medicare , Amtrak, Postal Service, etc, are now going to increase control by another 18% of our economy, run it as efficient as the previous mentioned items. And people wonder why jobs are moving overseas? And now we are going to see for the next 10yrs collections going to be made and no payouts until 2014, then they brag of a $180,000,000,000.00 Surplus. Boy thats great collect 10yrs, pay out 6yrs and have surplus. what happens after that quit paying for 4yrs again. Only Gov. can brag about this. Next comes cap and tax. That will finish us off, good thing India is English speaking , guess i will learn Chinese.

Posted by: donaldshu | December 20, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Poor people who get something for nothing as usual.

Losers: Middle class that once again must pick up the tab for the poor

==

UH, if the poor could pick up their own tab, they wouldn't be poor.

Paint chips?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

And many without health care will get it. Who do you think they'll be voting in favor of in 3 years?

BB

==

Simply astonishing that nobody mentioned this before. Thanks.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Winners : Uninsured,Seniors, Small business , Democrats ,Insurance and pharm.Cos., Sen. Majority Leader Reid, Spkr. Pelosi, the White House Staff and President Obama .

Losers: GOP, Blue dog Dems, left out poor and uninsured people and business in the new reform bill.

Posted by: dmfarooq | December 20, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Winners : Unisured,Seniors, Small buisness , Democrats ,Insurance and pharm.Cos., Sen. Majority Leader Reid, Spkr. Pelosy, the White House Staff and President Obama .

Losers: GOP, Blue dog Dems, left out poor and uninsured people and business in the new reform bill.

Posted by: dmfarooq | December 20, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I'm sure no one but me watched football today.

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Unforgiven was good but it was kinda High Plains Drifter, Joe Kidd, and Pale Rider warmed over. But you're right: it was good.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 20, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Yeah five. Sue me.

Harry Reid. Too little, too late, clearly ineffectual in his post. Yes he was instrumental in getting the filibuster-proof edifice of Senate votes, but at a cost of capitulating to GOP Senators who are acting like five-year-olds demanding to stay up past their bedtime. Reid should have been for Obama what Denny Hastert was for Bush, instead he has distinguished himself as a weak sister not ready for the fights behind and ahead.

Democratic Party, hopefully newly confident in their ability to come together and achieve, newly inculcated with the uselessness and irrelevance of their Republican opponents.

Now, starting anytime (awaiting dropping shoe), comes the arch eye-rolling predictions of The Great Backlash To Come. As G&T says (oh, wait, that's me):

"Backlash is the opiate of the teabaggers"

and we can expect a flurry of you'just-wait-you'just-wait-you'just-wait posts to come, and not a single one of these scary predictions ever coming anywhere near true.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone else watching NY Jets "Santa Claus" cheerleaders? How can they be not freezing?

==

Cheerleading is strenuous aerobic activity, and that warms a body up.

I don't do cheerleading but once a few years ago after being snowed in for three days I snapped and went outside with a snow shovel, desperate for a workout, a Vietnamese meal, and a throw in the sack. Ended up with my shirt off in 25° and *sweating* but poy golly I got out and got all three. Didn't even notice the cold, shoveling was I so vigorously.

You must be very sedentary, and have been all your life, to not understand this.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Squint Eastwood?

I'll stick with "The Beguiled," "High Plains Drifter, and "The GB&U"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone else watching NY Jets "Santa Claus" cheerleaders? How can they be not freezing?

==

Not many adults watch daytime TV, Jake

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

(Note to thread hijackers: this post has NOTHING to do with either a) President Obama's birth certificate or b) former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin so let's try to keep the comments section free of those topics.)

==

Thanks for finally putting the kibosh on the LONG FORM posts, I can only wonder why it took literally thousands of repeats of the same stupid distraction troll before you noticed. Loser #1 here is the irritating troll and his idiot racist hobbyhorse.

The Palin prohibition makes no sense, since the lying harpy inserted herself smack into the middle of the topic with the "death panel" lie, and her central position with the teabagger contingent, who are the biggest losers here nationally, their party of allegiance a Planck-length-behind second.

Winners:
* 30 million uninsures (why not every one of them?)
* anyone with medical insurance who ever needs to use it. No more preexisting condtions (euphemism for "being alive") and no more people in the fight of their lives with cancer being dropped by their insurance
* Barack Obama, a MAJOR win, even if compromised, and the reconciliation of House and Senate versions will, one hopes, remove most concesssions made to Republicans, who are not going to give a single vote for it anyway.

Losers:
* teabaggers. Despite screaming themselves red-faced ("TYranny TYranny TYranny") and bringing guns to town halls and yelling about Socialism Communism Fascism LONG FORM Alan Keyes, turned out to be ineffectual and irrelevant.
* the Republican Party, which showed that it could delay progress but not stop it, and ended up lowering themselves to trying to block defense authorization for troops in combat to make some infantile political point
* Republican Resurgence bloggers, who are going to have a much harder time selling their stale snake oil
* birther trolls (see above)
* Joe Lieberman, whose constituents must be watching his tenure with a stopwatch
* Sarah Palin, who spread her legs for the oil companies and insurance companies in her quest for fame and, as in NY23, has lost everything she puts her urine-mark on.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 20, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

why the ban on Sarah Palin... she inserted herself front and center-- with fiery and untrue rhetoric-- into the opposition to Health Care Reform... why is she not a loser?

Posted by: mbfdl | December 20, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Unforgiven = three Ambiens = painfully post modern.

As for the rage of the Left, that was a show of force. It is over.

The serious reason to oppose the bill is (1) because IF we literally can not afford it as it is written and (2) IF it has recently become something that can not be turned into something we can afford...that is a problem worth making the alternative (starting over right now) an important consideration.

When you get everyone used to something like health care you can not be take it away from them, not after they have paid into it, like SS and Medicare. You may not be able to make this "reform",which is actually just the current system on steroids (cash money) cheaper if you have insurance company profit centers ("risk corridors" etc.) written into the enabling legislation.

For me, this is the argument against, it is a serious argument and it is not left or right, it is just real.

Nut bars are doing their rhetorical dances. The real argument against is technical and boring and it is moot. We are going to do this, so the professional (not anyone here) opposition at this point are about postures and technical maneuvers, people positioning their careers around an immense commitment.

Also, we got a really nice embossed paper Xmas card from the DNC with a generic holiday wish and ersatz signatures from the President and the First Lady. It is the biggest card on my counter.
Go figure.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone else watching NY Jets "Santa Claus" cheerleaders? How can they be not freezing?

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

To all "everything or nothing" "progressives" who think they are "LOSERS" because they don't get "EVERYTHING" they "were promised":

This is a quote/mantra from a wise sage that should be ingrained in all our thinking:

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

As far as "Big Business" and the "Health Insurace industry" being "WINNERS":

During the last few hours on CNN, I saw three paid ads from the "Chamber of Commerce" opposing the Health Care legislation in Congress.

Why are they attacking a bill, if the bill is pro big business?

PS: I went to see "Unforgiven" at a theater when it originally came out. Since then I turned it on twice when it was on TV. All three times I fell asleep half way through the movie. I usually love Clint Eastwood Films, but somehow "Unforgiven" to me is equivalent to three Ambiens.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 20, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

We don't have free cable where I live.
Sounds odd, is it really free?
No, that must be a joke.

Hey, what about The Unforgiven?
One of my all time favorites, McCabe and Mrs. Miller was an attempt at Western genre realism (and Leonard Cohen sure is a stickler for detail when it comes to love), The Unforgiven was painfully post-modern.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else see Invictus?

Posted by: DDAWD
___________

No, DD, I stopped paying to see Eastwood movies when produced those films in which he costarred with a chimpanzee. "Million Dollar Baby" was awful as was the one where he plays an angry neighbor that defends a kid against some gang. Not trying to pick a fight with Clint, but I don't think Matt Damon had anything to do with South African liberation. On your strong recommendation, though, I may check Invictus out when it comes to free cable, though.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 20, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"You might find the balance of your own calculation is moved toward grudging acceptance."

Well I didn't really have an existential choice, I am a skeptic, not a hater nor one of these Palin/Bachmann revolutionaries. And like I said, I do have half of my retirement invested in this. I am betting on a lot of money making the big sucking sound as it heads over to health care.

Cost containment has disappeared by bipartisan agreement, neither side will allow the other's green visor ideas in this regard, so there simply are no hard value cost controls. There are lots of good things, with regard to health care access and you mentioned some regulatory quality improvements, or at least the language looks pretty good. The deep structure, the crucial rule making and number adding, accounting rule (what is profit?) and etc. exercises are all federal from now on. So K St. lobbying is going to influence a lot of things that are done (or not) at the state level nowadays.

After the reconciliation, le deluge?

This is so enormous, this could vie with the SSA of 1935 as the most expensive piece of legislation in history. So interesting how this happens during hard times.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

The American people
BHO
Pelosi
Reid
HuffPo
Common sense
Janeane Garofalo
Gene Robinson
Robert Reich
Tiger Woods (PGA Player of the Year and FED-ex Cup winner despite the haters)
Steven Seagal (for A&E's "Lawman")
Orson Welles in "The Third Man."

Losers:

Beck and the organized hate community
McConnell, Boehner, and spray-on tans
Big Pharma and Big Insurance
Drudge and any Post blogs that "emulate" him
Howard Kurtz
Mrs. Todd Phalin
David Blow-der and BroderWorld
Faux News
Haters who have health insurance and could care less about those who don't
Trolls "Jake," "snowmelt," and "37."
Joe ("You lie") Wilson
Michelle Maglagang
The extremist wing of the Party of No.
Tim Tebow
Alan Alda and MASH re-runs
Richard Speck
Jean Harris
John Allen Muhammed

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 20, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Meet the Press" was interesting this morning.

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

None other than Keith Olbermann himself says the uninsured should protest the Senate bill’s individual mandate by refusing to comply with the new law, and voluntarily forgo health insurance. As proof of his committment to the cause, he says he will go without insurance should a mandate become law:

“And I hereby pledge that I will not buy this perversion of health care reform. Pass this at your peril, Senators, and sign it at yours, Mr. President. I will not buy this insurance. Brand me a lawbreaker if you choose. Fine me if you will. Jail me if you must.”

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Shrink - none of which is to say this is a cost control measure...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 20, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Shrink2, you have identified the airliner problem!

The "Managers' Amendment" to the SB is found at

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf

I was heartened by pages 8-12. I think the insurance "gouging" oversight provided is a significant amendment. You might find the balance of your own calculation is moved toward grudging acceptance.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 20, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Well sure it is the wrong thread but so what, everyone seems to be out risking a coronary shoveling snow over there.

"commercial airliners are doomed"

So Mark I am guessing you don't think the 80,000 pounds of jet fuel burned by Boeing's new "super-efficient" Dreamliner in its first flight last week is the breakthrough on global warming we have been waiting for.

It was empty apart from the fuel and all they did is fly circles around Everett/Seattle. The test Captain said he liked the plane so much he wished he could load up another 80,000 (a little under 7 pounds per gallon) and have more fun.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I have no idea why I read Kathleen Parker this morning. Her writing is just so bad.
But then, her ideas are too. But I thought she is a Christian? On Sunday morning she writes,

"no one could pull off what [Obama] has attempted to manage -- two wars, a crashing global economy, climate change, health care, energy and unemployment. The scope of such challenges is what prompted man once upon a time to invent deities."

Atheists believe man invented God in his own image, but do religious people too?

Or do they believe man invented every God except the one (or more) they happen to believe in? That would be pretty silly.
No matter.

Now, everything about Obama and his party will depend on whether the economy adds jobs. It does, Republicans will be devastated in 2012, it doesn't, won't matter. America will have sunk itself
by debasing its currency and there will only be a few rich people and lots of poor. At that point Democracy gets ugly and China's one party crony capitalism will look a safer to the people left in charge.

As an optimist, I am guessing we will add jobs and the Republicans will have no masks to wear in 2010. In the election cycle that really matters, by 2012, they will be as irrelevant as they were in '08, a downwardly mobile angry mob of people who bet against the hopes and abilities of their own country.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 20, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Losers:
transparency
bipartisanship
frugality
new politics
tax cuts
campaign promises
liberal leadership
notion of fairness

Posted by: snowbama | December 20, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

BallardPolitics:

The DNC won't be running ads when Americans are furious about paying more and more for healthcare insurance, and the IRS "fines" will be the first thing to be repealed when the GOP and TEA* Party take back Congress.

*T.axed E.nough A.lready Party

Posted by: JakeD | December 20, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Wrong thread - sorry.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 20, 2009 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Chris Fox, according to

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

the CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is 36%. Because the oceans absorb more CO2 than the atmosphere, ice core measures of increase are more dramatic. The volume of the less absorbent atmosphere is far greater, as well.

I think that explains the difference in ice core and atmospheric measures.

None of this is by way of disagreeing about the issue that humans can affect. That issue is carbon emissions, from previously sequestered carbon, into the atmosphere, caused by human activity. For shorthand, I include the destruction of forests, removing a CO2 sink, as part of that activity, as well.

My original criticism of the banal politics [of a pledge to cap temperature rise to +2C] stands. We have no way to actually assure such a result, even if all are on board.

We COULD assure a reduction in carbon emissions from previously sequestered carbon, caused by human activity, if most of the world agrees. That is all we COULD do. I am among those who think we SHOULD do that.

I am also among those who think the move away from coal and oil to wind, solar, but also to nukes and natural gas and biodiesel will have a measurable effect on reducing carbon emissions and be an economic and national security blessing, as well. I am among those who think commercial airliners are doomed to a minor role, sooner or later, and the "later" may be only two generations hence. Thus I favor the gradual building of regional rail transit, and the further integration of the North American economies, over time. A truly far sighted exec at SWA might actually invest in high speed rail to assure his company's exit strategy from rhe demise of regional commercial airline service.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 20, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

if the republicans aren't the losers after their non-cooperation and lies, then the DNC needs to find a new chairman. It's time for 2-minute TV ads that tell the sorry GOP story.

Posted by: BallardPolitics | December 20, 2009 8:18 AM | Report abuse

The country has serious problems and the people in Washington who are the supposed leaders are not taking care of the country.


They are more concerned with partisan politics and taking money from special interests.


The health care bill WILL create a serious crisis in the federal budget which will have to be addressed at some point with either massive tax increases or a repeal of the bill.


Which would you prefer?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 20, 2009 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Let me try this again

Winners:

Deal makers (Obama, Reid, Schumer, Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, most of the healthcare industry)

Losers:

Purists on all sides (the whole congressional GOP, progressive purists, pro-choice purists, Bart Stupak)

lesson: you've got to give and take if you want to win

Posted by: lappzimm | December 20, 2009 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Winners:

deal-making progressive: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer
purist progressives
deal-makers in the health care industry
Louisiana and Nebraska

Losers

GOP purists (whoseem to be the whole congressional party)
progressive purists
Bart Stupak

lesson: if you don't play, you won't win

Posted by: lappzimm | December 20, 2009 1:44 AM | Report abuse

People should watch the movie Invictus.

One of the themes of that movie was that Nelson Mandela was doing things to anger his base in favor of appeasing the small minority who was staunchly against him (the white Afrikkaners)

Obviously in Hollywood, it all worked well and the country came together in favor of the predominantly white rugby team. However, there was a great deal of unity in real life when this all went down.

I have no idea if Clint Eastwood was trying to draw parallels between Mandela and Obama, but it just made me think that perhaps Obama was working things out on a much larger plan than simpletons like you and I can comprehend. I promise you that Obama is aware of what happened in the mid 1990s with SA and their rugby team.

Obviously Obama wants to be the progressive and save the world from itself and create an American utopia. However, one of his campaign platforms was that he is aware there is a faction that is against the liberal agenda and he would do his best to bring them into the fold.

I dunno, there was a good bit from that movie that could be allegorical to our own situation. He could play the paternalistic power monger, but is that preferable to fractionation of our nation? Perhaps it's preferable to give up some of the liberal agenda to appease his staunchest opponents.

I'm trying to recapitulate the theme, but my writing ability falls far short of Eastwood's directing ability.

Anyone else see Invictus?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 20, 2009 1:42 AM | Report abuse

more losers:

Women who are not very affluent, wanting an abortion, especially those living in conservative states

Anyone who believed Obama would keep his campaign promises and be a reform president

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | December 20, 2009 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Ok, I've changed my mind on Reid. He had the tougher job between him and Pelosi. He isn't the firebrand that she is, but it looks like he is getting this done.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 20, 2009 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, EMK @ 9:00, that was an informative read.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 20, 2009 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Addendum to scrivener post:


WINNERS

Big Pharma
Campaign contribution fund-raisers
K Street lobbyists

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 20, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

WINNERS:

Insurance companies
Hospitals
Medical professionals
Actuaries
Republicans (even if they don't realize it yet)

LOSERS:

The American people -- who now must buy over-priced private insurance with no meaningful controls on premium costs, no public option or expansion of Medicare, still can be discriminated against for pre-existing conditions and charged more for the crime of being old.

Democrats -- who once again proved they are a bunch of platitude-spouting weenies who would rather compromise for no good reason than stand up and fight for real, consumer-oriented reform.

President Obama -- see "Democrats," above.

Joe Lieberman -- hated more now than ever for spiteful sabotage of his own past positions and self-defeating grandstanding.

***

OBAMA WRONG, UNAWARE; US DOES TORTURE -- ITS OWN CITIZENS, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Regional Homeland Security- administered fusion centers use a nationwide microwave/laser radiation "directed energy" weapons system employing cell towers and satellites to silently torture, impair, subjugate unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

http://nowpublic.com/world/obama-wrong-unaware-u-s-does-torture-its-own-citizens
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR (if links are corrupted / disabled): NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 20, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

I thought you weren't going to post on threads with over 100 posts?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse

This is all speculation because nothing has been passed yet.

Winners:
Barack Obama - for leading the fight for the greatest social expansion since the Great Society. His popularity may not skyrocket but it will recover.

Harry Reid - for working behind the scenes to gain 60+ votes from the country's most dysfunctional body.

Nancy Pelosi - for corralling progressives, Blue Dogs, and everyone in between into an effective coalition.

Democrats - the final legislation may not be perfect but it is incredibly significant and vital for the American people. Democrats may still lose seats in Congress in 2010 but it will not be a tsunami. They have achieved something remarkable.

Ben Nelson - for winning more money for his state and additional influence.

Joe Lieberman - wins in the short term, getting some provisions and media attention. Loses in the long term, he will lose reelection in 2012.

The American people - for all the obvious reasons

Losers:
Republicans - by refusing to negotiate they had no influence on the final bill or discussion. Their rigidity and selfishness will be remembered for decades as health care becomes as popular as Social Security. They are left out in the cold.

Olympia Snowe - her wavering stance has hurt her on both sides. Democrats think she is insincere and her refusal to compromise cost her valuable influence. Republicans think she isn't conservative enough and her stance has lost her Republican support in Maine. She may not win the Republican primary in 2012.

Max Baucus - his pointless and ineffective strategy of winning "bipartisan" support blew up in flames. He cost Democrats at least a month of progress.

Posted by: fable104 | December 19, 2009 11:33 PM | Report abuse

It is true my health care mutual funds are going pretty well, up 10% in November.

Well sure it may be a fluke. After the cost controls kick in, in your dreams, those stocks will tank back to where they used to be.

Anyone who does not recognize what this is, nothing less than the American Health Care Revolution, is poorly invested.

Unemployed? Get into health care. Just figure out how to get on the train.

It is a good life, it is good for everybody local and good for the world, it is only bad for stuff people used to think was a priority, but who cares about that? Suckers.

Get into health care. Don't miss the train.

Think I'm joking? I am as serious as a heart attack. This is it. We are going to be one huge health care nation and I am out on the edge of this bubble. America is falling into the tank (I am no longer worried about mixed metaphors either) for health care. It sure beats wars. It sure beats oil and gold and houses. Why not?


Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

There are no winners when the public has to pay the way. The losers are we the American people. I believe there is a way to come together for the greater good without it costing so much. I am an unisured individual and I am not A Burden on anyone. I pay my way and I don't use the system unless I have to. There is a way to negoiate payment if you try. There is a clinic in Lubbock Texas that is a prime example of controlled cost. Someone (the government) should check it out. I do believe given the opportunity doctors will work with you if the threat of liable is out of the picture for frivolous law suits. These need to be stopped.
STOP THE POLITICS & LOOK TO THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: katsmer | December 19, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

The biggest winner: Harry Reid.

The biggest loser: Joe Loserjew. He has a big target on his back now. And the country of Israel, because it's losing it's most trusted American spy.

Posted by: playa_brotha | December 19, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

WINNERS:
AMERICAN PEOPLE
30 MILLION UNINSURED
POOR, WORKING CLASS, AND MIDDLE CLASS
OBAMA
HARRY REID
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
LIBERALS
FREEDOM, RIGHTEOUSNESS, MORAL VALUES

LOSERS:
REPUKE-LICAN PARTY
CONSERVATIVES
RUSH LIMPBALLS (ALWAYS A LOSER)
GLENN BECK (ALWAYS A LOSER)
FAUX NEWS (ALWAYS A LOSER)
AMERICA HATING TEA BAGGERS

Posted by: antiblazer | December 19, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Good article by Jonathan Chait over at tnr.com: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/the-republican-health-care-blunder

He makes a good case for the Republicans having lost to an even greater degree in the long term than we are currently foreseeing.

Posted by: emk1567 | December 19, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, for insurance companies. You know the they're poppin champagne with Obama. their stock went up 53 points this week over this bill.

Sorry America better luck next time.
SUCKERS!!!

Posted by: rparker101 | December 19, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Losers: All Rethuglicans, Indep's., and Blue Dog Benedict Arnold's who would rather line their pockets with Corporate Lobbyists instead of representing and supporting the people of this great nation in passing real Health Care reform.

Winners: Democratic Liberals for not allowing the Rethuglicans to run roughshod over them in "Killing the Bill" completely.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 19, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Judging by the new commentators, I may be the only person in america who thinks this but I think the white house has played this whole thing brilliantly and are total winners.
Not only did they get the health reform they were aiming for (which will help millions of people), but the democrats get to keep health reform as an potent election issue as there is still much to be done to improve the system.
When the 2012 elections come around, no one will remember how stressful the past few months have been or how it could have been better if not for lieberman. Obama will be able to proudly say we made improvements in the health care system despite many obstacle and will also be able to say there is still more to be done.

Posted by: SP123 | December 19, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Once again congress has mandated that access to legally approved care is restricted and women will have to pay more for full coverage.

===

Lasik is a legally approved medical procedure that addresses a chronic condition. Not covered by Medicare. Where is it written that every medical procedure must be covered?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 19, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Biggest losers - women

Once again congress has mandated that access to legally approved care is restricted and women will have to pay more for full coverage.

So even though the sponsor has pointedly siad this has "nothing to do with Sarah Palin" -maybe this should be a wake up call to all women sick of domination and lying politicians. Maybe it is time for women to lead instead of being victimized.

I am ready for real change in this country.

Posted by: mgd1 | December 19, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I'll take Republicans as short term winners. They've succeeded in driving up the negatives of this bill and the Democrats in Congress. They will succeed in making this the Waterloo for a number of Democrats in Congress.

Long term losers? Republican party.

They have done serious damage to their claim of being the small government party. Look how tightly Republicans have clasped Medicare to their collective bosom. Not one penny of reduction in projected growth!!! This while Tom Coburn natters on about the accumulated debt.

The sky won't fall. The ROTC won't become Obama's brownshirts. And many without health care will get it. Who do you think they'll be voting in favor of in 3 years?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 19, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Biggest losers:

Women, especially poor women who are single mothers.

Biggest winners:

Corporate America, especially Insurance corporations.

Long-term losers: Democratic party who cannot see beyond their rhetoric to the people they have used and lied to that worked so hard to get them elected and who will never help them again. The people who felt they finally had a voice last fall now know they are voice-less.

Posted by: thmpsnkids | December 19, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Chris: I believe the short term winners are the Democrats and the White House, but whether it becomes a long term win will depend on what happens with health insurance premiums in a year from now. As a small business employer, I feel the pain every year when it comes time to renew our health insurance which we continue to fund 100% for our employees although it gets tougher every year. I am concerned about how watered down this bill is and it will take a little time to definitely determine what change this brings, but once it's in place, it can be enhanced down the line so it's huge to get something passed.

This win, however, is proportionately small compared to how big the loss would have been to the Dems and the White House had the bill failed to pass the Senate. The significance of the Obama White House getting this done when the Clinton White House could not cannot be overstated.

The losers, both short and long term, are the Republicans because they are simply being obstructionist rather than proposing a viable alternative or at least meaningfully participating on this historic bill.

On another note, I haven't posted for quite some time due to the vitriol that poisons virtually every comment section. This thread is thankfully interesting (so far) rather than depressing and ugly. I appreciate that you don't want to censor people, but those who offend can go post their garbage on their own blogs. I'm surprised that it just continues here, thread after thread, hate comment after hate comment. it doesn't belong here and I hope the New Year brings real change in a positive way.

Merry Christmas to you and to yours, and also to those of you who positively contribute to a great politics blog.

Posted by: jrosco3 | December 19, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

benjaminsp, I have also had posts go to 'hold for clearing' heaven. I agree with shrink that it is nothing personal, so you shouldn't worry about it.

The software the Post uses is very literal, so if you simply use 1 for i, @ for a, $ for s, etc. in any largely naughty or strong words your post will get through.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 19, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Losers:
Karl Rove: (again) see WSJ.
Obama: defined by opponents and Dems like herding cats. Understandable, given lessons of Clinton, but too much negative headspace gave the narrative center of gravity back to his opponents. Why?...
Dems: Couldn't align behind what was ostensibly a voter mandate, sapping the image of a governing party.
Republicans: for lack of a supermajority-proof caucus, the party may not slow the legislation down enough to use it for a 2010 scare. In fact, moderate voters may have enough time to digest it and be the ones to decide 2010, handing the parties mixed verdicts by locales. Like Groucho in Horse Feathers, we knew that whatever it was, the GOP was against it.

Winners:
News Corp., Murdock holdings and conservative talk radio: for rallying the base early and dictating debate terms for much of the public, from Waterloo on. Of course, as Nate Silver also noted with an incredibly biased FOX public opinion poll, "One drop of poison spoils the whole glass of wine."
Obama: almost by default, he's an exceptional politician. Not Clintonian good, but he's learned from Bubba's failures and he could get more done on health care. He may not warm the base's cockles yet, but he's got time enough for wounds to heal in 2010 and rally voters. And that alone is a strange turnabout for a candidate who -- cough, cough -- campaigned on poetry rather than results. Now it can finally be the reverse. And let's face it, he'd be much less of a disappointment were it not for the campaign rhetoric.

Posted by: falasifa | December 19, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

John16, I'm glad you posted. Too many people forget that several very basic things have been accomplished with this bill. Others will come with time.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 19, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

WINNERS:
1) Show me the money! Stop talking about cheap $20 million bonus for Insurance CEO’s now. Let’s start talking $30 million or over now.
a Humana,
b Cigna,
c WellPoint
d Aetna


2) Who wants to be a new millionaire?
a. Congressional staff of Baucus, Reid ETC Company
b. Whitehouse staff
c. Insurance Lobbyist

LOSERS:

1) American taxpayers as always
2) Labor Union
3) 2008 Freshmen Class of US Congress

Posted by: vpstakes103 | December 19, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

benjaminsp

No worries.

Here is what I do with any posting greater than a few dozen words. I light it up and put it on the clipboard. If it gets lost or whatever. You still have your work.

As for the why? Don't bother.

But I am absolutely certain no one at the WaPo cares, all they do is count clicks. They are in survival mode.

No one is monitoring the situation, no one is controlling anything. They just bought a piece of software. If it holds one of your posts, trust me, no one ever looked at it. Don't be paranoid about this place, be paranoid about something that matters.

We all get rejected by software, it is not personal.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

OPEN LETTER TO CHRIS CILLIZZA

I am 65 and have always been a "liberal". Since RFK, however, I was turned off by politics. I only became excited again when Barack Obama began campaigning for President. I am an avid Obama Democrat.

I read many columns/blogs and find yours one of the best. Thursday and Friday were the first time I posted comments on your blog.

Although totally disgusted by JakeD, I have gotten very nice replies to my questions from several posters and I hope to contribute to your site with my point of view.

Most of my comments were published immediately. However, this was not the case with one of my comments. I spent over an hour writing, refining the wording and rethinking the logic of that post before hitting the submit button. When I did so I received a message to the effect that my post had to be approved before readers would be allowed to view it.

A friendly blogger "GoldAndTanzanite" told me the Site had a program that ran all comments through a list of "BAD WORDS" and blocked posts that contained any of the words on the list. (Reminds me of a George Carlin routine, as well as Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks).

Almost a day has passed, my post hasn't been "cleared" and the thread it was on is now dormant. Nobody is reading or posting on it anymore.

GoldAndTanzanite and I were debating how h*te mong*rs like JakeD can post r*cial diatr*be ad nause*m without getting into trouble, while I am censored because some word slips into my comments that is on your "list".

Unfortunately, I have ADHD, and am neurotic and somewhat paranoid. I am starting to envision the same Religious Abortion Rights people who have managed to add "Ant*- Ab*rtion" language into a "Health Care Bill" siting in an office at the Washington Post and dictating which words are acceptable to G*D and which have to be BANNED by the Washington Post.

This has become an obsession and I really need to know what "WORDS" are on your "LIST" and what makes these words "T*BOO".

Also my paranoia is thinking there may be a relationship between blocking the comments of "liberals" and the permissive attitude toward h*te-m*ngers like JAKED, whose goal is to unseat a bl*ck President.

PS: I went over this post several times and substituted an asterisks for a vowel within any word with any possibility of being on the censorship list.

Posted by: benjaminsp | December 19, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

HUMUNGOUS Winners
- The health insurance industry
- Pharma
- America's major trading partners/ competitors

Major league winners
- Joe Lieberman
- People who reject all forms of human sexuality for themselves except for statutory rape.
- Rahm Emanuel
- Former Insurance Co. CEO Ben Nelson
- Billy Tauzin, who has been getting his multi-million dollar a year payoff year after year for pushing through "Charge what you want" Medicare Part D and for thoroughly snookering Pres. Obama with a phony deal to cut prices after raising them
- Joe Lieberman (see Dana Milbank's column for why he deserves multiple mention)
- Max Baucus and the other horribly bought-off members of the Senate Finance Committee
-- Olympia Snowe, for successfully leading Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and, of course, Max Baucus by the nose for months.

Losers

-- American women
-- People who did not vote for a third term of George W. Bush
-- People who voted for Change we could believe in
-- President Obama (see the two above points)
-- Harry Reid, although he was a loser from the very beginning
-- Americans who work for a living
-- The companies they work for
-- Older Americans
-- Younger Americans
-- Americans who may get sick
-- The Democratic Party
-- Belief in "Change you can believe in"
-- The Republican party, for proving what sociopaths their leadership is

Posted by: edallan | December 19, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

*gah, the whining of the pro-choice advocates over this is maddening. This is the problem I have with ideological purists, they are willing to bring down everything over what is in the end, a niche issue - here's a newsflash, abortion is NOT a priority for the president, congress, or anyone in power. To risk the entire process over abortion funding makes absolutely no sense from a pragmatic point of view - according to this attitude, if you can't get everything you want than you'd rather get nothing than something.

As someone who consideres himself a pragmatic utilitarian, I don't understand this rigid all or nothing attitude that appears on all ends of the political spectrum. If more people adopted that attitude, nothing would ever get done. Ever.

Want federal funds for abortion? Want a public option? Well that's all well and good but what if you can't get it!? Given the current make up of congress, there was no way either of those was achievable. Focus on what you can achieve not what you "wish" to achieve when there's no way it was achievable at the current time.

Posted by: cjpotter19 | December 19, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

WINNERS:
- Insurance companies. They get handed 30 million new customers
- Obama. He achieved what he staked out a goal: Healthcare reform that Presidents over the last 50 years did not even get close to.
- Lieberman. Successful held hostage and got his lobbyists what they wanted
- Some previously uninsured Americans
- Right wing Democrats
- Americans. There will be a small decrease in the national deficit

LOSERS:
- Senior citizens. They will have some cuts in their exceptional socialized healthcare
- Left wing Democrats
- Tea baggers. They sound like angry noise, ineffectual in all other ways
- Americans. There will be increased premiums down the years
- GOP. They drew the line in the sand, and it blew back in their face. if the bill succeeds, they get nothing, and lose more credibility. If it fails, they'll need to fix it which will lead them to fail more drastically UNLESS they can convince the insurance lobby that they were instrumental in some way in killing the public option

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | December 19, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Nebraska & Louisiaana state budgets.

Losers: People who go to tanning salons

Posted by: MD-DC-VA | December 19, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Nebraska & Louisiaana state budgets.

Losers: People who go to tanning salons

Posted by: MD-DC-VA | December 19, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Biggest winner Offutt Air Force Base at Omaha Nebraska - it stays OPEN (Obama threatesed to close it if Nelson kills the bill),

Posted by: isart | December 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------
If true, I find this very encouraging. For the past few weeks, people have been asking whether or not Obama is capable of playing hard ball to get things done. This sort of answers that question. Using the possible closure of the Nebraska Air Force Base as leverage is a move that LBJ or FDR would utilize to achieve their objectives and not say, something reminiscent of Carter.

Posted by: cjpotter19 | December 19, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Biggest winner Offutt Air Force Base at Omaha Nebraska - it stays OPEN (Obama threatesed to close it if Nelson kills the bill),

Posted by: isart | December 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------
If true, I find this very encouraging. For the past few weeks, people have been asking whether or not Obama is capable of playing hard ball to get things done. This sort of answers that question. Using the possible closure of the Nebraska Air Force Base as leverage is a move that LBJ or FDR would utilize to achieve their objectives and not say, something reminiscent of Carter.

Posted by: cjpotter19 | December 19, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Biggest winner Offutt Air Force Base at Omaha Nebraska - it stays OPEN (Obama threatesed to close it if Nelson kills the bill),

Posted by: isart | December 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse
------------------------------
If true, I find this very encouraging. For the past few weeks, people have been asking whether or not Obama is capable of playing hard ball to get things done. This sort of answers that question. Using the possible closure of the Nebraska Air Force Base as leverage is a move that LBJ or FDR would utilize to achieve their objects and not say, something reminiscent of Carter.

Posted by: cjpotter19 | December 19, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

If the final bill deprives women of their constitutional right to a legal abortion, then women are crucial losers in the generally admirable fight to pass meaningful health care reform.

Posted by: blamm1 | December 19, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Winners:
--Republicans. They stonewalled and dragged this fight out and it completely stymied the entire democratic agenda. Plus they are much stronger now from the fight.
--Pelosi. She got a bill through months ahead, and with what looks like much more ease, than the Senate did.
--Horse trading. Yes, the final bill is nothing like what democrats wanted. But to those that held out, and bartered a better deal, it'll be enough to get those nice projects in their districts when the next appropriations bills come through.
--Insurance companies. They killed everything that hurt them, and are now left with only a government mandate requiring people to buy insurance. Happy days are here again!

Losers.
--Democrats. Yes, they got a bill passed, but it is nothing like what they wanted. Not to mention, they now look weak from caving over and over again in order to get this through. They would've gained more by standing by their principles and pointing the finger at the GOP saying they were the ones keeping meaningful reform from occuring.
--Leiberman. Bye bye committee positions. So long any power. Joe's about to become a true independent in 2010.

Undecided.
--Obama. I doubt people will perceive this as a triumph by the White House. I also don't think in the long term this will be seen as any meaninful reform. But a major success to hang his neophyte hat on in his first year in office is still pretty big. His stature will rise or fall based on what kind of impact this law will have on americans.

Posted by: ragingbull913 | December 19, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

1. Me -- a 50 year old independent businessperson with a pre-existing condition and escalating health care premiums.

Losers:
1. The forever cynical and head-in-the-sand Republican party. The American people know that the Republican Party opposed Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights and just about every other major advancement our society has made in the last 75 years. Same arguments against progress they used then they're rolling out again. Once again they are on the wrong side of history. And maybe this time they are on an irreversible slide to obscurity.

Posted by: john16 | December 19, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

1. Me -- a 50 year old independent businessperson with a pre-existing condition and escalating health care premiums.

Losers:
1. The forever cynical and head-in-the-sand Republican party. The American people know that the Republican Party opposed Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights and just about every other major advancement our society has made in the last 75 years. Same arguments against progress they used then they're rolling out again. Once again they are on the wrong side of history. And maybe this time they are on an irreversible slide to obscurity.

Posted by: john16 | December 19, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Of course we can't handicap the politics at this point. Suddenly all the horses break from the gate, they get through the second turn and are now on the backstretch heading into the third. You declare winners and losers? I suppose if you bet before the race starts, you can bet before it is done too.

Perhaps the threshold from which government no longer had a handle on the industry had already been crossed and that is why this Senate bill has become what it is.

Perhaps this is in fact a bipartisan agreement, appearances to the contrary.
Both parties agree, cost containment is a non-starter. Cue the strains of Kumbaya.

This is not about "flaws" that can be "tweaked" at some later date. This writes force fed, country-wide health care profiteering into federal law. The only chance for the regulation of health care effectiveness, access and efficiency is moved to K street. Good luck with that America.

People, we don't live in a tiny rich country like Holland, Switzerland, Sweden, or Norway. This country is the third largest in the world behind China and India. Do you know what that means about the cost of universal coverage combined with forced inefficiencies?

I believe this will become the most expensive piece of legislation ever, ever in world history. We better hope it is a winner.

It has a few fig leafs and some things that are good and right, like more FQHCs.

But this moves our economic leviathan further into health care as its core activity...with cost controls as a wish, not a promise, let alone a reality.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Winners: those who don't read too many comments and those who won't loose their life savings along with their health.

Posted by: ArtHorizon | December 19, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Compromises are compromises. What I would like to know does the bill still contain the provisions for Medicare cost containment. The current process allows the Congress to adjust reimbursements. As I understand in the beginning there was authority to allow actuaries to establish and enforce reimbursements. Thereby keeping Congress and their minions out of the process. Much like the Military Base closing mechanism [which worked]. If this piece was not jettisoned then there is hope for true control of costs for the taxpayer and the insured.

Posted by: doug71 | December 19, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I second the post of johnkomalley, an intelligent Irishman who is paying attention.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 19, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Jaked: Nelson and Lieberman were only the tail-end of obstructionists trying to kill this bill.

Anyone who is paying attention sees quite clearly that the GOP and the Right Wing are not interested in the welfare of this country, they are only interested in making trouble for the current administration. That's a shameful legislative agenda.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 19, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

Obama: First year = health care, nobel peace prize(only becuase he threaded the needle on the acceptance speech), Cairo speech, Stimulus package - which seems to haved staved off a disaster, Climate agreement with China, Nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia, and sole reason for a more cooperative international community (the bar was low, admittedly).

Losers
The American people. While the watered down bill will be a net gain socially, and reduce the deficit, it could have been better.

Republicanism

Social Republicans have hijacked the conservative party, hence a guy like McCain tacking rightward to get re-elected, and Arlen Specter tacking leftward to get re-elected. Where o where is Bill Buckley? 2010 may see some natural mid-term pick-ups in moderate areas, but the the macro picture is pretty bleak for Repubs. I consider myself a centrist dem, but I want the Repubs to get healthy again, and I simply think it will take them 10-20 years to scrub off the Rush/Sarah/Glenn residue, because who they are pandering to will no longer be 1) alive, or 2) the majority ethnicity.

Both

Teabaggers were a winner as they got short term traction vis a vis disproportiate media attention; losers though, because they are an intrinsically atropying brand (see above comments).

Posted by: johnkomalley | December 19, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Biggest winner Offutt Air Force Base at Omaha Nebraska - it stays OPEN (Obama threatesed to close it if Nelson kills the bill),

Posted by: isart | December 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Biggest winner Offutt Air Force Base at Omaha Nebraska - it stays OPEN (Obama threatesed to close it if Nelson kills the bill),

Posted by: isart | December 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Rebublicans who once again mangled good legislation into a three-wheeled cart they can roll out and display at election time (they did the same to welfare legislation in the 60's).

Big losers: Republicans in the short term, for stupidly delaying defense appropriations to delay health care. Their supposed national defense bona fides were exposed as nothing more than their usual support for handouts to another set of corporate fat cats.

Posted by: silphiuma | December 19, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Tomorrow morning's MTP (Axelrod v. Dean) should be interesting.

For all the women out there outraged about this bill, maybe next time you will actually vote for the woman running for President?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Insurance Industry
Pharma
Obama "Mission Accomplished!!"

Anyone with enough chutzpah or big enough balls to brazenly demand payment to betray American people.

Losers: Democratic Party
Democratic Candidates who will receive no support from base in 2010/2012
Harry Reid(Goodbye Senate 2010)
Joe Lieberman(Liar, Traitor, POS )
American People

Posted by: dboz1970 | December 19, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

winners; democrats, unions, community actions groups, acorn, greed,


losers; american individualism; integrity:
monetary solvency:the future

Posted by: calkid1 | December 19, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Gloria had it right:

Winners: 1. insurance and pharmaceutical giants who are getting the biggest windfalls ever seen.
2. Republican and Blue Dog Democratic obstructionists, who didn't want health reform in the first place, so they tried (and succeeded) to make the bill as bad and minimal possible.


Losers: 1.women--the Nelson and Stupak amendments banning coverage of abortion are a giant step back for women's health care that's fair and safe.
2. Obama and the Democratic party in the 2010 elections because they have so disappointed the netroots that brought them to where they are. Just as after the 1992 Year of the Woman, women were disappointed and stayed home in droves in 1994, progressives, especially newly activated young voters, are likely to stay home in 2010.
3. The American people who didn't get the change they need.

Posted by: GloriaFeldt | December 19, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: esthermiriam | December 19, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The biggest losers in all this are WOMEN!! The very people the Democrats can't win an election without!

Would someone please tell me why I bother to vote, when I'm constantly being thrown under the bus?

The biggest winners are the insurance industries, who -- with the help of their "friends" in both parties -- stand to make a fortune!!

This is certainly not the change some people thought they were voting for ... too bad they didn't listen to WOMEN during the primary.

BAC

Posted by: BAC104 | December 19, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

losers: every taxpayer
every small business owner
every needy patient
every citizen that relies on his own judgement
every doctor who thinks on his own.

winners : corruption
greed
unions and acorn

Posted by: calkid1 | December 19, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Poor people who get something for nothing as usual.

Losers: Middle class that once again must pick up the tab for the poor.

All of America when it is finally understood that this fatally flawed bill was structured with the specific intent of failing. The failure will be blamed on everyone but the politicians and the pols will throw up their hands and say we have no other choice but to go single payor. Then they will say we have no funding mechanism and must implement a value-added tax.

Then, America can become just like Europe... a weak continent with no real economy beyond the welfare state. We are all then supposed to bow to our government masters and thank them for allowing us the privilige of living in their version of nirvana.

The only problem is if democrat party ideas and ideals are so good why is it that Michigan or Louisiana are not modern nirvanas? After all, democrats have ruled those states for the past 60 years.

The passage of health reform is the beginning of the end of an America where "American Exceptionalism" will be no more. It will take time. It will be beyond my lifetime, but it will happen none the less.

Posted by: brucejfern | December 19, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Winners:
American People
Good Samaritans
The Good Guys

Losers:
Republicans
Tea Baggers
Godless, greedy, selfish obstructionists

Posted by: mm14 | December 19, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

WINNERS:
AMERICAN PEOPLE
30 MILLION UNINSURED
POOR, WORKING CLASS, AND MIDDLE CLASS
OBAMA
HARRY REID
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
LIBERALS
FREEDOM, RIGHTEOUSNESS, MORAL VALUES

LOSERS:
REPUBLICAN PARTY
CONSERVATIVES
RUSH LIMPBALLS (ALWAYS A LOSER)
GLENN BECK (ALWAYS A LOSER)
FOX NEWS (ALWAYS A LOSER)
AMERICA HATING TEA BAGGERS


Posted by: antiblazer | December 19, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The "winners" were people from states where Reid (and Obama) needed to bribe the Senators to vote for this monstrosity. Unfortunately, the end result is people from a few States like Louisiana, Florida, Nebraska, Montana and Nevada get "special breaks" that are unavailable to the rest of the States.

Every resident of Maryland and Virginia ought to contact their Senators and DEMAND that they ensure their constituents get equal treatment as residents of these "favored" States or that they threaten to "hold out" until these special concessions are inserted to protect us.

Why aren't all Americans being treated equally in this Health Bill?

Posted by: A-COL | December 19, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Losers:
1. The elderly who have no concept what the cuts to Medicare will do to their day-to-day care.
2. Hospitals.
3. Doctors

Winners:
All of the politicians who negotiated their own sweet deals behind the scenes in exchange for their vote.

Posted by: garg8050 | December 19, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Big losers: older people under 65. the 300% rate difference for age still in the bill will make insurance unaffordable.

Especially people in this age group in states which now allow only small rate differences if the bill's preemption clause applies. their rates could triple.

Posted by: coumaris | December 19, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

Bribery
Extortion
Government oppression

Loser:

Freedom

Posted by: pub123 | December 19, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Winners:
Republicans
Republican lackeys
Evagelical Christians
Insurance Companies

Losers:
All other Americans

Posted by: jake1231 | December 19, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

jjacobson1:

Will you join with me in pledging to NOT vote for Obama in 2012 or any Congressman / woman who vote for these abortion restrictions?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

There are two sets of losers here.

People who believed in Obama and who need health care they can afford and that will cover their needs. With no public option this will be difficult if not impossible.

And women: Evidence suggests the mainstream media will continue to miss the details as they did on the Stupak Amendment and as they also did elsewhere such as in PEPFAR. But as with Stupak under this plan it is far more than likely that insurance companies will no longer provide insurance coverage, state laws or no, because the ridiculous discriminatory "write two checks" policy will make it untenable. Moreover, we have not even gotten to the people who could not have a chance to be losers in this game because they were never at the table....women in the military, in the federal government, and low-income women who already suffer from the discriminatory policies under Hyde.

If the measure is taken of people who worked their tails off for the Obama campaign, including me, the mishandling of this whole effort means to me that Obama also will suffer long-time losses as will so called "pro-choice" Democrats.

Winners?

the insurance industry
the Catholic Bishops
the Republicans

Posted by: jjacobson1 | December 19, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Not that I particularly trust CBO predictions for 20 years into the future, but they say that the bill will cut deficits by over $1 trillion during it's second decade.

wow!

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Hard to find a lot of winners in this given the all-around dissatisfaction.

Barack Obama is probably the most clear cut winner. I do think the health care bill will improve the lives of many people and Obama is probably the best positioned to reap the political benefits since he's not up for re-election for another three years. He also gets to tout the accomplishment immediately. And as imperfect as this bill is, it's a damn big accomplishment.

Blue dogs are winners in a relative sense. I think they are really overestimating the potential for political fallout from passing this thing. Blue dogs represent people who needed reform the most. The problem is that for many people, they won't have the time to let the bill fully take effect. For people like Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor, people in states who will benefit a lot from reform, they are in position to reap the political benefits since they have five years before their next re-election.

Nancy Pelosi has really showed that she has political muscle and is perfectly capable of using it.

Losers
Harry Reid - as capable as Pelosi seemed, Reid was the polar opposite as a paragon of ineffectiveness. He just couldn't cobble together a good coalition. Granted, it's extremely tough in the Senate since you need 60% of the votes, rather than 50%.

Liberal Dems - they were once again neutered by the extremist Republicans. Again, this is tough because of the disproportionate power given to Republican Senators who represent about 10% of the population and yet have filibuster ability. But whether it's their fault or not, they didn't get what they wanted.

Howard Dean really stuck his neck out there and again was rebuked. As one of the most prominent supporters of the public option, it seems like that's not going to happen.

Conservative Republicans do really well when it comes to volume, but will do poorly when it comes to votes. They came across as petulant obstructionists. The main stream media is still controlled by Republicans, but the main stream press isn't as mainstream as it used to be and the advocates of the left have a much louder voice because of the internet. It will be very clear how much disdain Republicans have for the American public and will take some beatings that they might not have.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Definite winners:

Health insurance companies
Drug companies
The thirty or so million who will eventually be insured, including millions of illegal immigrants after they receive amnesty
Obama's ego
Reid's, Lieberman, Pelosi's egos


Definite losers:

Anyone, other than the very affluent, receiving Medicare benefits
The millions who will pay a tax or "penalty" for not purchasing required insurance, up to two or two and a half percent of their income, another broken Obama campaign promise
The twenty or so million people legally in this country who will be uninsured ten years from now
The millions who will be denied health care coverage until the ban on discrimination based on preexisting conditions goes into effect in four years
The tens of thousands who will needlessly die because they lack health care insurance within the next ten years

Probable losers:

Democrats in the next two elections
The cause of true, comprehensive reform

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | December 19, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

WINNERS:

President Obama

The Insurance Industry

Harry Reid

Ben Nelson and company

The Republican Party

LOSERS:

The American people

The Democratic Party

The Federal Deficit


Posted by: moebius22 | December 19, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Last time I checked, Senators Nelson and Lieberman were NOT members of the Party With No Ideas : )

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Gloria Feldt:

Then why are all of the other "liberal" Democrats going along with said abortion restrictions?! Have they joined with the GOP's "War on Choice"?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Prima donna Senators
Big Insurers
Pharmaceutical Company's
Hospitals

Losers: Core Obama Supporters
People who believe in real change
American treasury
Democratic Wing of the Democratic
Party

Posted by: paulnolan97 | December 19, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Win/Lose is a false dichotomy the GOP likes to use. The bill isn't everything it could be but that is NOT the fault of the Democratic Party or President Obama. With 18% of the GDP (and climbing) tied-up in health care, something had to be done. If the bill is weak it is because of the Party With No Ideas: they are a bunch of tantruming babies.

I look forward to seeing this bill improve as it finishes going through legislation, I look forward to the improvements that will be made as it is implemented in a few years, and I look forward to all of us enjoying a more equitable and effective system of health care in the 10 or 20 years it will take to meet the benchmark set for us in Canada and Europe. It will hurt for awhile, I'm sure.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 19, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Winners: 1. insurance and pharmaceutical giants who are getting the biggest windfalls ever seen.
2. Republican and Blue Dog Democratic obstructionists, who didn't want health reform in the first place, so they tried (and succeeded) to make the bill as bad and minimal possible.


Losers: 1.women--the Nelson and Stupak amendments banning coverage of abortion are a giant step back for women's health care that's fair and safe.
2. Obama and the Democratic party in the 2010 elections because they have so disappointed the netroots that brought them to where they are. Just as after the 1992 Year of the Woman, women were disappointed and stayed home in droves in 1994, progressives, especially newly activated young voters, are likely to stay home in 2010.
3. The American people who didn't get the change they need.

Posted by: GloriaFeldt | December 19, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Winner - President Obama's birth certificate, because it will be easier to access when medical records are computerized.
Loser - Sarah Palin, because, well because she's still Sarah Palin.

Posted by: frb2749 | December 19, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

-- health insurance companies
-- pharmaceutical companies
-- Senator Nelson & other congressional drama queens with insurance industry ties
-- People trying to promote tea parties as cogent activism

Losers:

-- people forced to buy exploitive health insurance policies
-- me
-- taxpayers

Cillizza:

-- still needs to do something about hair style

Posted by: ephemerella | December 19, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The American people are the biggest losers. And Obama and the Democrats are the other biggest losers. Elizabeth Hasselback was right, Obama is D for Delusional, if he thinks there is reform in this bill.

Posted by: farhorizons | December 19, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

We'll see if liberals all vote for abortion restrictions. After 13 hours of negotiations last night, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) signed on to health-care reform as the pivotal 60th vote. He did so with stronger prohibitions on abortion than those floated by Sen. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, contained within Majority Leader Harry Reid's manager's amendment. Under the latest set of provisions, not only would federal funds be prohibited from being used for abortion coverage, but states could also prohibit abortion coverage on their exchange.

If this provision passes, how many states would we expect to prohibit abortion coverage on their public exchange? We can get a pretty good guess by looking at the current situation for Medicaid funding of abortion. Since the 1976 passage of the Hyde amendment, barring federal funds from covering abortion, Medicaid has been prohibited from covering the procedure except in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the woman is at risk. However, states are free to use their own funds to cover elective abortions under Medicaid, and at the National Abortion Federation's last count, 17 do so. My guess is, under Reid's proposal, we'd see a few more states, perhaps 20 or so, allowing a plan on their exchange to cover abortion, since this program requires states to opt out of abortion coverage, whereas with Medicaid they must opt in.

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I prefer to be optimistic, something that the GOP needs to learn about. I believe that ultimately the American people and the Demmocratic Party will be winners. When the Democrats failed in their effort in 1993, it cost them the Congress. I agree with Senator Harkin of Iowa, the starter house has been built. Without the starter house, there is no way to advance.

Senator McConnell was smiling at the same time that he was talking about how bad the bill is. Is this guy for real? When asked specific questions about provisions of the bill, Senator McConnell did a lot of back peddling.

In reality, insurance prices will go up whether or not there is a healthcare bill. However, the increase should be far less than if nothing had been done.

I have heard way too much from people who want something for nothing. The no-tax and anti-government crowd need to get a grip. Again, I say that I am pro-government. Afterall, I am an American and the US Constitution established a government for, by, and of the people. It did not establish corporations to serve on my behalf. I have no vote in corporate board rooms. I have a vote in government. Literally, to be anti-government is to be un-American. Read the Consitution. If the naysayers do not like what is happening, then come up with something worthwhile and get enough votes to change Washington, state, and local offices.

Democrats won in 2008. If we mess things up, then go to the polls in 2010 and vote for change.

Read Kevin Phillips book American Theocracy if you want to know what is really happening.


Posted by: EarlC | December 19, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Losers: The American People, Obama, Democrats, GOP

Winners: Corporate America

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | December 19, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Winners:

1. Obstructionist GOP senators and their ultra conservative supporters.

2. Insurance companies who will continue to raise their premium at every given opportunity.

3. Unprincipled and sneaky Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

4. President Barack Obama (historical victory at any cost - even if it means a lame and very watered down reformed law)

Losers:

1. The 44 million Americans who will continue to either be uninsured or underinsured.

2. The progressives who were made to compromise at every point of the deliberation. Even though, Howard Dean was the first to popularize the idea that the Democrats needed to compete in every state of the Union and paved the way for Obama presidency. He has so far been shunned by that presidency.

Posted by: midas20874 | December 19, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I agree with rebeccalhoover and jdadson.

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I think the big winners are:

1. The insurance companies -- they will have more customers but their prices will continue to be sky high.
2. The drug companies -- they still will be allowed to charge higher prices in the USA than they charge any where else in the world.

Who loses?

1. Almost all Americans who are not stock holders or executives in insurance and drug companies. Even worse price gouging in on the way.
2. Americans who are fined because they really can't afford to participate in these crap plans.
3. The 6% who won't even by covered by 2019.
4. The ones who die because they can't afford health care.

This bill is crap in my view and it is not at all the bill I hoped for when voting for Obama and other Democrats. This is why I have to add the following:

Who else loses?
1. Obama - who is going to vote for him again after his snake behavior on this issue? Whatta sell out Obama is to big insurance and big pharma.
2. Democrats in the Senate and House. This bill is not going to be popular. The Democrats are going to lose seats.

Posted by: rebeccalhoover | December 19, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

There will be short term and long term winners, immediate and latent losers.

Short term winners will be Lieberman, nelson, and the Democrats who made the process harder than it had to be. While they get their short term demands, when they face voters who didn't get covered and could have, they may regret their positions.

Long term winners are the Party workers and the Congresspeople who stuck it out and got something done will win, again and again. As they correct deficiencies in the program over the next several years they will cement their standing in their states.

Short term losers are some of the principles., like Pelosi and Ried, who took beatings for not getting the whole hog on the plate the first time. As Health care gets sorted out and the deficiencies corrected they will get the benefiot of having gotten anything at all done to start.

Long term losers will be the Republicans who stood there and acted like spoiled three year olds, shouting no at every opportunity. Theylook bad now, and will look worse when the programs kick in and lots of people, currently insured or not, get more, better, cheaper health insurance, and the businesses that find it possible to go back to reasonable insurance, or the ones who can transfer their employees to better insurance, or insurance that they currently don't have, at lower cost.

The Republicans will insure their long term loser status by constantly running on repeal of national health care, because like Social Security and medicare, once people have it they will be particularly obstinate about keeping it. The Republicans have given themselves a consistently losing party plank that they will run on for the next hundred years, and for all that time only the far right will vote for them because of it.

The President will get history's approval for his willingness to push the process while letting Congress write the bill. He will certainly be a long term winner. When Sarah Palin runs against him, and against National Health Care, it won't make much of a difference whether his demonstrated competence defeats her, or her stubborn insistence that "That Health care Boondoggle is juswt socialist nonsense." makes her anathema to the entire center and center right of the electorate.

Next year LOTS of Democratic Party incumbents and lots more would be Democratic incumbents will be reminding people that the full system doesn't kick in till 2014, and letting the republicans get a shot at scuttling the program before it can do any good at all is a real risk.

Over all, Dems win. Repubs lose, and the Repubs just don't understand, "You lost, get over it." (at least, not when they lose.)

Posted by: ceflynline | December 19, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

It's important to differentiate between short-term winners and long-term winners; Ditto losers.

Short-term winners:

Sens. Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe for having forced their personal wishes on the majority. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi--esp. leader Reid who, in the short term, successfully shepherded a herd of 'cats' in a single direction. The insurance industry (about to reap a whirlwind of new customers without the dreaded 'public option')

Long-term winners:

Pres. Obama, who can claim a 'victory' of a sort; the D. party-ditto, the American people (although they may not realise it for a good while), businesses.

Short-term losers:

Progressives, women (courtesy of Rep. Stupak and Sen. Nelson's anti-abortion measures), Howard Dean, anyone who wanted the health insurance industry brought to heel.

Long-term losers:

Most of the people mentioned above as short-term winners. The R. party, whose pathetic, blind obstructionism will eventually be seen for what it is. The health insurance industry which, in time, will be forced to abandon many of their most profitable practices.

Much of the above is predicated on: 1. whether the conference-generated Bill emerges 'better' than the Senate version; 2. whether the mandate is either weakened or some public option-type system emerges; 3. whether the excessively strong anti-abortion language is toned down; 4. whether the President is willing/able to explain the final Bill to the American people; and, finally, 5. whether, in time, this Bill proves to be the first step towards a single payer-type system which, ultimately, is the only financially sustainable system (sorry, supply-siders, but it's not an accident that every single industrialised economy in the world uses SOME VERSION of this type of coverage).

Posted by: sverigegrabb | December 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

It's impossible to say exactly who the winners and losers will be, because only one man, named Reid, knows what's in the bill. However, we can predict.

LOSERS

Incumbants, including Obama. The people have spoken, and they have been ignored. 2010 is going to be a rough year.

Small businesses.

The economy.

The deficit. (When has a government program ever not cost many times what it was supposed to?)

Health care. If you like the DMV and the IRS, you'll love ObamaCare.

Doctors, many of whom will quit immediately.

WINNERS

Pharamaceutical companies

Insurance companies

Foreign companies, including overseas health providers.

Lobbyists

Lawyers

Posted by: jdadson | December 19, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Winners
The Uninsured

Losers
Anyone that really wanted a bill that would control the cost of health care, which is the larger more difficult problem to solve.

Posted by: jjsk | December 19, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to read all of the folks who are so sure of what the outcome will be without having seen the final bill - after all, it hasn't made it through the Senate (yet!) let alone Conference Committee. The Doomsayers in particular must have a really effective oracle....

Posted by: gdodge13 | December 19, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

DEMOCRATS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE WINNERS.IN 20-25 YRS THIS WILL BE SO GOOD EVERYONE WILL BE CHEERING HOW THEY SUPPORTED IT.PROBABLY MEDICARE BY IN BY THEN AND MUCH MUCH CHEAPER COVERAGE AND PRESCRIPTIONS DRUGS.IN 20 YRS EVERYONE WILL TO BE IN ON THIS.

Posted by: donaldtucker | December 19, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Bob Casey

Posted by: emoran1 | December 19, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Democrats of all kinds are going to benefit big time in the long term from establishing the principle that health care is a fundamental right (even with some cuts and horse-trading, this is what the new restrictions on insurance companies amount to). It establishes the government as a major safety net provider for all Americans, rather than just the very poor and old margins of society. This legislation will roll back libertarianism if libertarianism doesn't rise up and roll it back first (the incremental implementation schedule will be interesting to watch).

Republicans can grab a short-term win, though. The party should be able to ride right-wing outrage over the expanding state and progressive fatigue and dismay over some really ugly sausage-making to a good few more seats in the mid-terms.

Obama wins big, obviously. He beat Hillary to the presidency and now he's about to do what Bill couldn't accomplish, and all before his first mid-term.

Posted by: Widebrant | December 19, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I think that an obvious winner is President Obama because if I had a dollar for how many times I have heard or read in the media and blogesphere first that a bill was impossible, then that a bill would not be done by the end of the year, I could take a nice luxury vacation. It seems that Senator Nelson and his home state of Nebraska are also winners in all of this, as is Harry Reid. And last but not least, the millions of americans who have no healthcare coverage and will now have it are winners. In terms of losers, it's obvious that the Republican Leadership in Congress has lost out big time both in the short and long term. In the short term, they lost out in regard to defeating a Healthcare Reform Bill of any kind, which was obviously their goal, but they also lost out in the long term by refusing to contribute their constructive efforts to the most significant piece of legislation since Medicare. As this bill improves, and americans appreciate it more and more, the republicans will be known as the party who did everything in their power to try to prevent it from happening. The republicans have just given the democrats yet another valuable asset to utilize in their favor come election time. The other person who loses is Senator Lieberman. Not only did his attempts to torpedo the legislation fail, but he has practically guaranteed the loss of his Senate seat come election time, because the left and the Netroots will not forget his actions. I'm sure there are other winners and losers in the game, but that's my take on it as of now. Thanks for allowing the input Chris!

Posted by: nutritionauthor | December 19, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Too soon to tell... I won't believe it until the ink is dry from the President's pen. Though I'm troubled by many of the compromises, I cautiously predict:

Winners:
The American people

Losers:
All the hypocrites who claim to be pro-life but don't give a damn about you once you're out of the womb. They're more concerned about one cent funding an abortion than one cent saving the life of someone with limited means living without healthcare.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | December 19, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The winners are big insurance and pharma, and their grunts in the senate, we all know who they are...

The losers are....ME,YOU AND YOUR KIDS AND THEIR GRANDPARENTS.....

Posted by: johnhinze | December 19, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm self-employed, and pay the full cost of health insurance for my young family. My family will be big losers, as our health insurance premiums will dramatically increase. Whether we skip a vacation or put off needed renovations to our home, Messrs. Obama and Reid have made our family quite a bit more poor with their "help." Merry Christmas.

Posted by: nick_kasoff | December 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Big winners:

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, especially the 50 million uninsured
Barack Obama
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Ben Nelson
Max Baucus

Big losers:
The Republicans
Mitch McConnell

Posted by: tmcbride1 | December 19, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Losers: The American people
Winners: no one

Posted by: peter_s | December 19, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company