From Obama's bill on Whitehouse.gov:

The President’s Proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured. Specifically, it lowers the flat dollar amounts from $495 to $325 in 2015 and $750 to $695 in 2016. Subsequent years are indexed to $695 rather than $750, so the flat dollar amounts in later years are lower than the Senate bill as well. The President’s Proposal raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years – the same percent of income as in the House bill, which makes the assessment more progressive. For ease of administration, the President’s Proposal changes the payment exemption from the Senate policy (individuals with income below the poverty threshold) to individuals with income below the tax filing threshold (the House policy). In other words, a married couple with income below $18,700 will not have to pay the assessment. The President’s Proposal also adopts the Senate’s “hardship” exemption.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

Possibly, Romney is running.  Pawlenty is as well.  Thune idk.  Haley Barbour maybe but he will not win.  Ron Paul the same thing, old and too libertarian.  Palin will not run.  If Romney gets it he will choose McDonnell, imo. ( Going to see the gov Sat ;) )

Your anger is a result of misinformation from an unreliable source.

here are key excerpts from the wiki


In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5 of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators "duly chosen and sworn") http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXII  brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=144&invol=1

 (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority

    The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.

    The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6] member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.

Nevertheless, the current Senate rules state that affirmative votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting are required for future rule changes. Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option, also called the "constitutional option" for political reasons and because of its roots in constitutional majoritarianism; that is, the Ballin decision.

The term "Nuclear Option" really refers to this:

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules"). Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option."  Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".

On May 23, 2005, a group of fourteen senators was dubbed the Gang of 14, consisting of seven (spineless) Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven (spineless) Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered that was not under "extraordinary circumstances". Specifically, the (spineless) Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. "Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term was open for interpretation by each Senator, but the Republicans and (bend me over the table "moderate") Democrats would have had to agree on what it meant if any nominee were to be blocked.

If the filibuster were used in 1964  as it is now then we wouldn't have the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Breitbart is nothing more than a corporate propogandist and a political vandal.

You're being used to advance a corporatist agenda.

Funny thing= Palin runs, she will beat Romney worst than Obama.

Disagrees with THIS healthcare reform.  Not healthcare reform... this plan... which is a very poor one... and guess what I know poor people too... informed poor people know less who've studied the issue.

Let me ask you something... how many pages of the 1017 page proposal have you read?

You didn't even know that people are forced to have healthcare under this bill.  How many people do you know that don't have healthcare say they can't afford healthcare?

I know a lot... people who don't even go with medicare because they can't afford the very minimal payments and who try to support children on a part time 9 dollar an hour job.

hey ninja while your at it look up the following: Blue Dog Coalition and legislative ping-pong. The GOP and the "evil corporate boogie monster" have done very little. In fact, most have been supporting the h.c. reform deal, AMA and pharma in particular.

Indeed.  Most people in the country want healthcare reform... most do not want this bill... in fact most want Congress to start entirely over... this is why the Republicans have been pushing the "Lets start over" and "lets have cameras in the negotiations like you originally wanted" cards.   The reconciliation isn't to stop republicans even though that's how it's spun... it's being used to twist the arm of moderate democrats who wouldn't of passed the thing even with a philibuster proof senate... a lot of unions aren't even for it... and they're usually pro universal healthcare. 

I could go into a big list rattling off reasons why people are against it... but I think the easier way to explain it is vs the UK plan which you are familiar with.

In the UK plan, the government negotiates with it's union of doctors what it pays for.

In the US plan, the government will give vouchers and tax breaks to people to pay their premiums.

It's setting up a big buerocracy that isn't really going to have the power to change anything.

We're going to create a giant health exchange... which will be the equivlent to one of those websites auto insurance companies have... but ours is going to cost BILLIONS.

This is something people could just do for themselves mind you, get quotes from multiple insurance companies... but we're going to create an exchange to do it for billions of dollars... for got knows why.  It's this that is being banked on to be the be all and end all of lowering prices and increasing coverage... and it's something that people could already do themsleves with little effort.

The bill is a few very good ideas wrapped around a couple DISASTEROUS ideas without enough price controls... and spending that is entirely unnessisary... instead relying on hope that prices will drop without changing anything to force prices to drop.

The government NEEDS power to negotiate with the markets if they're going to go socialized... but instead they plan to go more socialized but leave the prices up to the free market.

Imagine the UK trying to pay for everyones health insurance without being able to negotaite what the health insurance or any procedures cost.

Some of those whom we have looked back as the best of presidents had similar attitudes. Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, the other Roosevelt, and Johnson were all kinda "fuck you, i do what i want."

Quite honestly, it's the only way to get stuff done in American politics sometimes. Stuff like strong-arm backroom tactics and strange Supreme Court rulings are sometimes necessary. It's an incredibly murky field, of course, but it is necessary.

okay, thank you, now I understand much better, I can understand why people wouldnt like that, is that what Obama originally wanted to do? or is it something people have forced him into?

The GOP supports the current Senate HCR bill for the same reason most people oppose it, because of the individual mandate without a reasonable public option.  With the inclusion of a nonprofit public plan, the approval of HCR goes over 60% on average.