He's syndicated by DialGlobal, which used to be known as the Jones Network.  They have a stable of talk shows stretching the spectrum, but with progressives outnumbering conservatives by at least two-to-one.

I just hope they sign up Ron Reagan, whose show was the best thing still remaining with AAM before they pulled the plug.

If they did, it would then go to the nation's state houses.  Three-quarters of all state legislatures would have to ratify it.  That means 38 out of 50 -- including quite a few red states whose Republican-dominated legislatures know full well that the SCOTUS decision is a windfall for their party being able to keep and hold onto power.

Let's put it this way: in a far more progressive time, we couldn't even pass an amendment giving women equal rights to men.  What makes you think we'd be able to pass anything that would require lots of state reps to agree to a measure that would take away the advantage they will now enjoy over their potential rivals?

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

But what will happen is the status quo will be shattered. The house bill will stand. And a new version of the Senate bill will be put into place.

And the reconciliation of those bills will maintain and support a National Health Service. So much was spent to such little effect that even the lobbyists will aquiesce they have failed.

Any "new version of the Senate bill" would be subject to filibuster.  With the Republicans now holding 41 votes, the only way any "new Senate bill" could emerge from that chamber would be by somehow persuading Snowe and/or Collins, under heavy partisan pressure from their own party, to jump ship and vote for it (while keeping Lieberman on-board, of course).  In other words, such a bill would be practically guaranteed to be a lot worse for progressives than the current Senate bill.

If you can't see that, you're out of touch with reality.

But they won't be able to stop adverse selection (recission, pre-existing conditions) through reconciliation.  If we push through a public option, or something similar, through reconciliation, the Republicans and ConservaDems won't go along with passing it later.  And, with no ban on adverse selection, the insurance companies will simply dump their sick policyholders and let them go with the public option...resulting in public option premiums that will be considerably  higher than private insurance.

...but will he FILIBUSTER it?

If he votes for cloture and then votes against the bill, it's the same as rubber-stamping it.

...and it means:  individual mandate, no employer mandate, no public option.

In other words, "bend over."

Kiss your houses, bank accounts, and lifestyle goodbye -- to be swallowed up by the insurance companies, who now have a legal mandate to take whatever they want from you...and, when people realize it, it will be the Democrats that get the blame.

Notice that Gibbs today hailed the Baucus bill, in its current form, as "achieving" Obama's twin goals of "bipartisanship" and "increasing coverage and competition," and indicated Obama would sign it as-is, with no public option.  :-(

"The avalanche has begun...it's too late for the pebbles to vote."

...as soon as the message gets out that "we finally have a 'bipartisan' bill with a chance of passage."  It will be rationalized as "if we don't pass something, we'll get creamed in 2010, and we have to be loyal to our President and our party."

The number of progressives, even those who swore there would be no bill without a robust public option, who will hold their nose and vote for the Baucus bill as-is will make your head spin...or at least will if you don't remember 1996 and the stampede to "support President Clinton" on welfare "reform" and the Defense of Marriage Act.

I base it on this:  now, the situation will be spun as "we can have a 'bipartisan' bill (without a public option) that can get the 60 votes for cloture, or we can be stubborn, demand a 'partisan liberal' bill with a public option, and have Snowe claim 'betrayal' and join her colleagues in a filibuster, killing any chances of passing anything and hurting our chances in 2010 -- don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."

I predict that, by the end of the week, any talk about a public option will start to fade away, and the "bipartisan" Baucus bill will acquire an aura of "this way or the highway."

Just as I predicted:  this will give the Baucus bill the momentum to make it "this way or the highway."  Say goodbye to any chance for a public option, but say hello to individual mandates.  :-(

(sound of crickets chirping)

...it's laughable.

Think back to the stimulus.  It was trumpeted at the time that, even if it turned out not to be enough, we could always pass a second stimulus later.  But, once it passed, such an idea vanished as if it had never been.

The fact is, the passage of any such bill will result in enough "health-care fatigue" that revisiting the matter in the foreseeable future will be unthinkable.  Either people will be happy with the results and any modifications will become a non-issue, or they will be unhappy and turn to the Republicans and their "free-market solutions" to remedy "the mess the Democrats made."

I'll grant you one possibility where an incremental approach might work:  where the first step is presented as just such an incremental stage, rather than "the health-care reform bill," and where an individual mandate is not part of the process.  But it's a bit late for that now.  Whatever emerges from the current D.C. sausage factory will not only be "the health-care reform bill," but the only one we can expect for years to come.

Actually, under the Baucus bill, it wouldn't be the same...because it would also mean paying a hefty fine each year for not being able to financially afford a plan.

Then, what if "this bill," in every detail, is the final result?  Pass it or kill it?