And for the record, none of us Obama "haters" EVER thought this was a good bill, your claim that this is a new objection we've come up with in our neverending quest to deny His Magisterial Greatness notwithstanding. We've said from day one that it was no good, and that if it passes, both the American people and the Democrats will have he** to pay for it.

We've also pointed out from day one that the unions are heavily opposed to the exise tax. This isn't us scrambling for reasons to oppose the bill--sounds like it is more the supporters of it who are scrambling to come up with reasons why. So instead of attacking us as "haters," tell us why it's such a great bill.

Nancy Pelosi set the record straight on two points:

1. The law of the land is NO public money for abortion [sadly and wrongly in my opinion], and

2. The medicare cuts in the bills do NOT cut benefits to seniors.

I would be curious what brilliant schemes you think they will come up with to "avoid" this pre existing condition thing.

how exactly do you imagine they would do that?

As any psychologist will tell you, the best predictor of behavior is past behavior:

That stuff is ALREADY illegal. But the insurers do it anyway, using what they call "post-claims underwriting." Here's a long but gripping article about a recent case in Colorado, where Jennifer Latham won a huge jury verdict against her insurer for dropping her post-claims:

"I think there's a business model here," Levy says. "The insurance company knows that if they deny a hundred claims, 95 of those people are going to go away. They know that five of them might consult with a lawyer, and that two or three of them might get a lawyer to take their case. And they know they're going to make it very expensive and protracted for those people to pursue their case."

http://www.westword.com/2010-02-11/news/health-care-hell-the-insurance-company-didn-t-give-a-damn-th e-jury-decided-it-ought-to-give-37-million/1

Even TPM posted about it, as the best argument for a Public Option, because it is not going away as long as we have insurance companies as the center of our healthcare system.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tmcpac/2009/06/the-single-best-reason-for-kil.php

There have been many lawsuits over this practice and yet insurers keep on doing it. Why? See the quote from the lawyer above. It's worth it to them, because so few people actually fight them.

"I didn't campaign on the public option."

It was her way of putting on the record that her leadership and caucus will not be the ones blamed when HCR dies.

Appears she'll be a tough negotiator in reconciliation although her vulnerable members definitely don't want to have to vote twice on this legislation.  Wonder if she can hold it together.  She doesn't yet have the votes IMHO.

A day after President Obama's bipartisan summit, the White House is already moving in to referee the health care debate in Congress. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is scheduled to sit-down at the Capitol with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 5 p.m.

In comments earlier in the day, Pelosi put the onus of passing a health care on the Senate, saying Democrats would move on legislation that requires a "simple majority" in the Senate and that Majority Leader Harry Reid "will see what he can get the votes for, and then we'll go from there."