Rick -

quote:

she could have held out for tort reform rather than just trying to kill the public option.

My scenario included both.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeffrey:
Rick -

quote:

she could have held out for tort reform rather than just trying to kill the public option.

My scenario included both.

I understand. I am simply saying that they fought so hard for her vote that I suspect if she had wanted it, she would have gotten it.

Indeed, with as much as the Democrats want a bipartisan bill, I suspect if the GOP had promised several votes if they got tort reform, it would have been included. Mr. Obama has already said he is open to it.

That is just a supposition on my part though.

Tort reform isn't binary. There are probably several reasonable alternatives, and different flavors of each. To say, "yes, we'll include tort reform" isn't meaningful.

quote:

Originally posted by Grotriman:
What a shyster this guy is. He deserves to be stripped of all of his seniority and chairmanships.

The number of doctors and medical professionals I speak to who think that the public option is the only viable alternative is way more than the number who oppose.

This guy deserves to be voted out ASAP.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and I certainly understand why Lieberman's pompous announcement was newsworthy.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think that Lieberman will have the last word on the public option.

"58 of us would vote for a public option with an opt-out but I guess we can't have it in the bill because Joe doesn't want it!"



Somehow I don't think it's going to go down like that. I guess we will see.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Grotriman:
What a shyster this guy is. He deserves to be stripped of all of his seniority and chairmanships.

The number of doctors and medical professionals I speak to who think that the public option is the only viable alternative is way more than the number who oppose.

This guy deserves to be voted out ASAP.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and I certainly understand why Lieberman's pompous announcement was newsworthy.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think that Lieberman will have the last word on the public option.

"58 of us would vote for a public option with an opt-out but I guess we can't have it in the bill because Joe doesn't want it!"



Somehow I don't think it's going to go down like that. I guess we will see.

You need a total of 60 votes in the Senate to get a bill past filibuster. 58 (or even 59) votes won't work. Joe Lieberman's (or Olympia Snowe's) vote is crucial to get to the magical number "60." That's why.

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Grotriman:
What a shyster this guy is. He deserves to be stripped of all of his seniority and chairmanships.

The number of doctors and medical professionals I speak to who think that the public option is the only viable alternative is way more than the number who oppose.

This guy deserves to be voted out ASAP.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and I certainly understand why Lieberman's pompous announcement was newsworthy.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think that Lieberman will have the last word on the public option.

"58 of us would vote for a public option with an opt-out but I guess we can't have it in the bill because Joe doesn't want it!"



Somehow I don't think it's going to go down like that. I guess we will see.

You need a total of 60 votes in the Senate to get a bill past filibuster. 58 (or even 59) votes won't work. Joe Lieberman's (or Olympia Snowe's) vote is crucial to get to the magical number "60." That's why.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm saying that I don't believe it's going to go down like that and I'll try to explain why.

I assume those of you who tend to ignore the fact that Reid is putting it in the bill but jump on Lieberman's one pompous threat know that this can be passed with reconciliation. 51 votes and it can't be filibustered.

I assume those of you who share Lieberman's goal of killing the public option know that the reason Reid is putting it in the bill is because there are not enough votes for a health care bill without it.

If Reid does what he says he is going to do- it will take 60 votes to remove the public option. It will take 60 votes to replace it with a public option with a trigger. Neither of these would have 60 votes.

So what we're saying is that 1. Reid will not bring the public option with an opt-out to the floor even though this is his decision at this time, 2. Reid might choose reconciliation (he and Durbin say they might), or 3. Obama will fail like Clinton did.

I'll say it again, Ax! I don't think, at the end of the day, that Joe Lieberman will have the final say on this.

You know, I could be wrong, but I believe a public option, however watered down, will be in the bill that the President signs.

Don't get me wrong, I favor "public option" too (second to straight up single-payer universal healthcare).

I don't know enough about "reconciliation" to comment further.

Rick Z. or other political junkies -- care to shed more light on this "reconciliation" process, especially on it's applicability to get around filibuster thread for the healthcare reform bill?

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:
Don't get me wrong, I favor "public option" too (second to straight up single-payer universal healthcare).

I don't know enough about "reconciliation" to comment further.

Rick Z. or other political junkies -- care to shed more light on this "reconciliation" process, especially on it's applicability to get around filibuster thread for the healthcare reform bill?

The reconciliation process is a budgetary process. A budget was approved last Spring. To the extent that laws are needed to "reconcile" existing law or expenditures to that budget, these laws cannot be filibustered since, in theory, they are technical readjustments to something that has already been approved.

Not all of what is being done in the health reform bill will be viewed that way, so the law would be paired back somewhat. I am not sure what can be included and what cannot be. But since we are dealing with the Senate's own rules, the Senate itself can define this, I assume. But this is why they prefer 60 votes to cut off the filibuster -- because everything can be included then.

I'll bet we do not get to this. I expect there will be 60 votes to end the filibuster -- Lieberman's show of political testosterone notwithstanding.

Another possibility, of course, is that the public option gets yanked from the Senate bill to get it approved -- the Senate leaders knowing it will be put back in by the Conference Committee between the two houses. Then the House approves the final bill first and it is up to the Senate

Does anyone really think that Lieberman is fool enough to be the one guy whose vote kills the entire thing on the final vote -- and his vote is not against the bill, itself, but only to keep the Senate from actually voting on it?

At that point, he can vote to shut off the filibuster so there can be a real vote and then vote against the law itself because it includes the public option, and he saves political face.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Grotriman:
What a shyster this guy is. He deserves to be stripped of all of his seniority and chairmanships.

The number of doctors and medical professionals I speak to who think that the public option is the only viable alternative is way more than the number who oppose.

This guy deserves to be voted out ASAP.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and I certainly understand why Lieberman's pompous announcement was newsworthy.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think that Lieberman will have the last word on the public option.

"58 of us would vote for a public option with an opt-out but I guess we can't have it in the bill because Joe doesn't want it!"



Somehow I don't think it's going to go down like that. I guess we will see.

You need a total of 60 votes in the Senate to get a bill past filibuster. 58 (or even 59) votes won't work. Joe Lieberman's (or Olympia Snowe's) vote is crucial to get to the magical number "60." That's why.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm saying that I don't believe it's going to go down like that and I'll try to explain why.

I assume those of you who tend to ignore the fact that Reid is putting it in the bill but jump on Lieberman's one pompous threat know that this can be passed with reconciliation. 51 votes and it can't be filibustered.

I assume those of you who share Lieberman's goal of killing the public option know that the reason Reid is putting it in the bill is because there are not enough votes for a health care bill without it.

If Reid does what he says he is going to do- it will take 60 votes to remove the public option. It will take 60 votes to replace it with a public option with a trigger. Neither of these would have 60 votes.

So what we're saying is that 1. Reid will not bring the public option with an opt-out to the floor even though this is his decision at this time, 2. Reid might choose reconciliation (he and Durbin say they might), or 3. Obama will fail like Clinton did.

I'll say it again, Ax! I don't think, at the end of the day, that Joe Lieberman will have the final say on this.

You know, I could be wrong, but I believe a public option, however watered down, will be in the bill that the President signs.

Doing it on reconciliation is nuclear war. I think the filibuster should be killed, but do it the right way ... at the beginning of a new Congress, when you're adopting the Senate rules. This way would be just chickensh!t.

I think ... at least, I hope ... that some members of the Democratic caucus will jump ship if Reid tries to use the reconciliation process for this.

Moreover, do you really want to set that precedent? There won't always be a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. The sword cuts in both directions.

Power and greed overrule common decency.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Doing it on reconciliation is nuclear war. I think the filibuster should be killed, but do it the right way ... at the beginning of a new Congress, when you're adopting the Senate rules. This way would be just chickensh!t.

I think ... at least, I hope ... that some members of the Democratic caucus will jump ship if Reid tries to use the reconciliation process for this.

Moreover, do you really want to set that precedent? There won't always be a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. The sword cuts in both directions.

You are overreacting, Quirt.

The GOP used this same method when they had the majority.

We are also faced with having the minority party unwilling to do anything other than kill any bil whatsoever. And many of their leaders have made it very clear they want to kill it simply to give Obama a major defeat. For the Demcorats to simply give into this sort of unthinking block voting would be a slap in the face to the American people who overhwlemingly want something done.

Someone need to govern. The GOP has abdicated its role on its own volition.

I might agree with you if the GOP had been working to craft acceptable legislation all along. But they have not been. If they choose to take only one stand -- kill it -- then a firm response by the Democrats is appropriate.

Well, Rick has already answered the question. Thanks, Rick. Medicare Part D was passed through reconciliation, as was Bush's tax cut. In fact, the Republicans fired the Senate parliamentarian twice because they didn't approve of rulings. The precedent has been set. I'm not worried about what the Republican will do in the future. I already know what they will do in the future. And as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have a straight up vote on this, rather than having it blocked by a single, or a few, Democrats joining with Republicans in a filibuster, meaning the policy does not ever receive a vote. YMMV.

Who's talking reconciliation for real? This is why following this stuff daily will rot your brain. In my view little has changed from the beginning and all the side show to try and get Reid re-elected (wait, he's a shill for himself? ) and so forth is maneuvering to get a bill finally passed and protect special interests on all sides.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Zimmer:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Doing it on reconciliation is nuclear war. I think the filibuster should be killed, but do it the right way ... at the beginning of a new Congress, when you're adopting the Senate rules. This way would be just chickensh!t.

I think ... at least, I hope ... that some members of the Democratic caucus will jump ship if Reid tries to use the reconciliation process for this.

Moreover, do you really want to set that precedent? There won't always be a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. The sword cuts in both directions.

You are overreacting, Quirt.

The GOP used this same method when they had the majority.

When? Give me specific examples, please, of controversial bills that were tucked into the reconciliation process.

quote:

We are also faced with having the minority party unwilling to do anything other than kill any bil whatsoever. And many of their leaders have made it very clear they want to kill it simply to give Obama a major defeat. For the Demcorats to simply give into this sort of unthinking block voting would be a slap in the face to the American people who overhwlemingly want something done.

Someone need to govern. The GOP has abdicated its role on its own volition.

That is exactly what the filibuster is all about. Being able to block legislation, unless you have 60 votes in favor. That's what it's always been. The Democrats have used it to do exactly that in the past.

As I said, the sword cuts both ways. If you're willing to ditch the filibuster, be willing to have the Republicans cram all sorts of things down your throat when they get 51 votes.

And, if you're willing to ditch the filibuster, do it in January 2009 ... when you adopted the Senate rules. Or January 2011. To do it now, because it gets in your way, is chickensh!t. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

When? Give me specific examples, please, of controversial bills that were tucked into the reconciliation process.

I am not going to go into 12 years of GOP rule in the Senate to find examples for you. Feel free to go back and show me that the GOP never played fast and loose with the Senate rules to get what they wanted.

quote:

That is exactly what the filibuster is all about. Being able to block legislation, unless you have 60 votes in favor. That's what it's always been. The Democrats have used it to do exactly that in the past.

As I said, the sword cuts both ways. If you're willing to ditch the filibuster, be willing to have the Republicans cram all sorts of things down your throat when they get 51 votes.

And, if you're willing to ditch the filibuster, do it in January 2009 ... when you adopted the Senate rules. Or January 2011. To do it now, because it gets in your way, is chickensh!t. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

But quirt...

No filibuster rule is being ditched. It is there and remains there. There is a rule in the Senate about filibuster and it is being respected. The GOP intends to use it to get what they want. So, the Democrats have to work around it because it is there and remains there. That's how the filibuster rule works.

Because, there is also a rule about reconciliation. No one is breaking any rules nor is any one suggesting any rules be ignored. The Democrats simply may use this rule to get what they want.

What is the difference? Both sides are playing by the rules and both sides are using the rules.

Why is it that you think the majority party has to ignore one rule and cannot use it but you think it is mandatory the minority be able to invoke another rule?

Why not argue that the minority should not even invoke the filibuster? They don't have to. Why tie the majority's hands behind its back not allowing it to use the rules of the Senate while you raise the minority party's use of the rules to a sacrosanct level?