http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/health/policy/19health.html?emc=eta1

I'm not really sure why he/they waited to do this for so long...but it looks like it's coming. Do you think the D's have the balls to pass it via reconciliation? Do they include the dreaded public option?

Obama might as well give up or he will always be remembered for failing to pass his health care reform agenda. I don't think this is getting through.

If he's successful, every Democrat in Congress will be vulnerable come time for re-election.

derek bomar wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/health/policy/19health.html?emc=eta1

I'm not really sure why he/they waited to do this for so long...but it looks like it's coming. Do you think the D's have the balls to pass it via reconciliation? Do they include the dreaded public option?

If they use the tactic to pass a bill that only 35% of the country is in favor of, then they have bigger balls then I gave them credit for. 2010 will make 1994 look like a walk in the park.

Writerbuckeye wrote: If he's successful, every Democrat in Congress will be vulnerable come time for re-election.

As of right now they already are.

Certainly not advocating this, but there may be violence if they go that route.

fish82 wrote:

derek bomar wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/health/policy/19health.html?emc=eta1

I'm not really sure why he/they waited to do this for so long...but it looks like it's coming. Do you think the D's have the balls to pass it via reconciliation? Do they include the dreaded public option?

If they use the tactic to pass a bill that only 35% of the country is in favor of, then they have bigger balls then I gave them credit for. 2010 will make 1994 look like a walk in the park.

This!! Go ahead and ram this through. The American people do not want it, only a minority want this particular legislation.

If he's successful, every Democrat in Congress will be vulnerable come time for re-election.

The fact they already are is all the reason in the world to go ahead and try this.

As it stands now they get all of the downside from voters who don't want it from even trying to pass it, and none of the upside from the base of actually passing it.

With the Democrat party brand being in the toilet the way it is, the mentality is finally taking hold that it can't hurt to just do it because at least it would fire up their base, which is sitting on its hands right now.

Playing politics instead of giving the people what they really want, gotta love it.

I am aware this happens on both sides of the aisle. Just sickens me we might have to actually see the public option. Revolution can't come soon enough (not necessarily a physical one, and I hate I have to say that cause if you don't the progressives on here will think you want violence and label you).

If by some chance the public option is enacted and by some fluke chance actually works, what will everyone who screamed about it say? Just curious...

I'm on the fence to see if I want this, let me explain why.
More broadly speaking, the fact that the Senate is basically locked into 60 votes pretty much kills anything and everything big. Meaning, nothing get done. Meaning the large issues, entitlements, spending cuts, etc. will need to really have a supermajority to really change the direction of the country.

Perhaps, a move to use reconciliation to pass something is a step in the right direction. The Senate is a body that is 51% passage on items, save treaties. The 60 vote threshold is just a means to slow down or simply stop progress. Now whether your support or opposition of the Healthcare bill defines your meaning of progress, granted. But, the fact that anything of substance requires 60 votes is, to me is a little troubling.

I guess I approach it from more a democratic theory aspect. In that democracy, you would figure that 51% would allow passage of items, yet it is 60% in the Senate. How democratic is that really? I can see this passage as perhaps opening the doors for more 51 vote passages.

Then again, I'm not a huge fan of the bill either.

Go ahead ................ make my day.

If they go this route, only the far left wing districts like Pelosi's will elect a "D" in November.

The repubs might already take the majority back in both houses, but if they did this then they will definitely take it back in the Senate and get a HUGE majority in the House.

jmog wrote: If they go this route, only the far left wing districts like Pelosi's will elect a "D" in November.

The repubs might already take the majority back in both houses, but if they did this then they will definitely take it back in the Senate and get a HUGE majority in the House.

Unless you have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a President of your own party, the Republicans in the Senate have shown how you can effectively shut down all business from getting down no matter how big your majorities are.

Some Democrats appear to be waking up to this, and realize that even if Republicans take over both houses of Congress next year, all they have to do is obstruct everything they try and do, and then run against the Republicans as a do-nothing Congress as is being done to them today.

I think Obama wants the Republicans to take over Congress at this point to get himself re-elected. Look at the wonders it did for Clinton when he had a foil to run against when the Republicans took back control of power in 94.

The Republicans will now get back into power, and produce nothing for the publican because of obstruction. The publican will get frustrated with them the way they are Democrats now, and we will rinse and repeat the process again.

Do they include the dreaded public option?

I have read that is what they want to do, because it will fire up Democrats to come out to the polls in November.

They only need 50 votes for a public option as Biden can break a tie, and 50 might be doable.

The U.S Senate might break out in fisticuffs if a Public Option gets through after Scott Brown's win because he was supposed to kill healthcare, not have been the straw that facilitated the creation of the public option. Politically reconciliation was a tough case to make when you had a filibuster proof majority, but now that they only have 59 Democrats seem much more at ease with the idea of reconciliation to pass their agenda.

Trust me, if anything in the health care bill really was bipartisan and not from the far left, you would have many moderate republican senators willing to "jump ship" and vote for it.

The problem here is they HAVE to be the "party of no" right now because quite frankly the D's have allowed zero of their ideas into this bill.

Same with the Crap and Tax that passed in the house. That will NEVER pass in the senate for the same reason.

Listen, we've had this "60 vote" thing in the senate for 200+ years, its something that USED to create cooperation between the majority party and the minority, aka the founding fathers' original plan. Now the D's would rather not negotiate at all and attempt to make the Rs as only saying "no" and having no ideas of their own when this is blatantly false.

jmog wrote: Trust me, if anything in the health care bill really was bipartisan and not from the far left, you would have many moderate republican senators willing to "jump ship" and vote for it.

The problem here is they HAVE to be the "party of no" right now because quite frankly the D's have allowed zero of their ideas into this bill.

Same with the Crap and Tax that passed in the house. That will NEVER pass in the senate for the same reason.

Listen, we've had this "60 vote" thing in the senate for 200+ years, its something that USED to create cooperation between the majority party and the minority, aka the founding fathers' original plan. Now the D's would rather not negotiate at all and attempt to make the Rs as only saying "no" and having no ideas of their own when this is blatantly false.

As if the previous administration never passed anything with Reconciliation...

And to your point about them not having any ideas, the CBO scored both plans and the D plan IIRC cost less and covered more people

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html

"But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan."

derek bomar wrote: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html

"But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan."

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that a public option will save money and cut deficits has NOT looked outside our country and seen the costs of public health care and how expensive it is in every other country.

And yeah, that Washington Post article had ZERO slant to it.

The government can't control costs of Medicare/Medicaid but all the sudden they can control costs of a much bigger public health care option?

If the Dem's attempt to do this they will have put the gun to their head's and pulled the trigger. Not even Pelosi would be safe come election time.

derek bomar wrote: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html

"But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan."

The only people who believe this are idiots and partisan hacks (not necessarily different folks).

EVERYTHING in history says it's not true.

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote: Trust me, if anything in the health care bill really was bipartisan and not from the far left, you would have many moderate republican senators willing to "jump ship" and vote for it.

The problem here is they HAVE to be the "party of no" right now because quite frankly the D's have allowed zero of their ideas into this bill.

Same with the Crap and Tax that passed in the house. That will NEVER pass in the senate for the same reason.

Listen, we've had this "60 vote" thing in the senate for 200+ years, its something that USED to create cooperation between the majority party and the minority, aka the founding fathers' original plan. Now the D's would rather not negotiate at all and attempt to make the Rs as only saying "no" and having no ideas of their own when this is blatantly false.

As if the previous administration never passed anything with Reconciliation...

And to your point about them not having any ideas, the CBO scored both plans and the D plan IIRC cost less and covered more people

The previous administration passed tax cuts, which were:

1. A budget-related item, which is what the reconciliation process is meant for.

2. Widely supported by the public, unlike the healthcare bill.

If they do this, the American public will once again be taught the lesson of "be very careful of what you ask for".

Sometimes I wonder if America has to go too far in order to realize some things.

The "friendly filibuster" has been abused. Time to bring back the old school filibuster. Make the Republicans debate for days on end, reading the dictionary and the phone book.

If they want to be obstruct the will of the majority, make them earn it. Same goes for the Dems when they are in the minority.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm on the fence to see if I want this, let me explain why.
More broadly speaking, the fact that the Senate is basically locked into 60 votes pretty much kills anything and everything big. Meaning, nothing get done. Meaning the large issues, entitlements, spending cuts, etc. will need to really have a supermajority to really change the direction of the country.

Perhaps, a move to use reconciliation to pass something is a step in the right direction. The Senate is a body that is 51% passage on items, save treaties. The 60 vote threshold is just a means to slow down or simply stop progress. Now whether your support or opposition of the Healthcare bill defines your meaning of progress, granted. But, the fact that anything of substance requires 60 votes is, to me is a little troubling.

I guess I approach it from more a democratic theory aspect. In that democracy, you would figure that 51% would allow passage of items, yet it is 60% in the Senate. How democratic is that really? I can see this passage as perhaps opening the doors for more 51 vote passages.

Then again, I'm not a huge fan of the bill either.

The founders did it like that on purpose they didn't want fast changes.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: The "friendly filibuster" has been abused. Time to bring back the old school filibuster. Make the Republicans debate for days on end, reading the dictionary and the phone book.

If they want to be obstruct the will of the majority, make them earn it. Same goes for the Dems when they are in the minority.

I agree. The filibuster has become a joke. It has become nothing more than a way for the minority to simply demand a super majority with no effort.