Unreconciled

Unless I’m misreading, this is just further evidence that the Blue Dogs don’t even believe their own rhetoric. The reconcilliation process requires that the bill be revenue neutral over 10 years. The version that is being criticized as ‘too liberal’ is the one that has the best chance of acheiving that goal.
Am I just misunderstanding or are fiscal ‘conservatives’ once again coming out in favor of defecits?
.
Someone help me out…..

I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if a fair number of Senate classicists who are Democrats opposed this on “unparliamentary shortcut” grounds–just as Republican classicists blocked the use of the nuclear option to confirm judges during the Bush Administration.

Except that reconciliation isn’t the same thing as the “nuclear option”. I’ll repeat that again: reconciliation is not the same thing as the “nuclear option”.

The proper analogy would be to the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which were also passed using reconciliation – and which the vast majority of Republicans voted for.

I was baffled by Chris Dodd at Kennedy’s memorial service talking about how excited Kennedy was over the bill that passed his committee – just as if they didn’t have to deal with the finance committee. Am I missing something?

I’m trying to figure out why the so-called “fiscally responsible” moderates would oppose a plan that saves both the Feds and regular folks a lot of money.
Actually, I think I’ve figured it out: it’s because they have been bribed to oppose it; but for once I’d like the traditional media to not play the Kabuki game.

darius3, you are of course completely correct about the massive difference between ruling the filibuster unconstitutional (the “nuclear option”) vs. passing a bill by a majority and not a supermajority (as happened in 2001 when all the Bush Dogs and self-professed fiscal conservatives voted for a fiscal policy the country couldn’t afford).
-
In fairness to Joe, though, he was talking about what Democrats might say. And betting on substanceless preemptive surrender from the Congressional Democrats is never a bad strategy.

I think it’s premature–second time I’ve used that word today-

At your age? Twice is pretty good under the circumstances.

When you used it before… did it go along with another word that rhymes with “congratulation”?

Bad jokes aside, pafro is entirely correct. Only in the bizarro world of D.C. would people seriously talk about a bill having too much cost savings for “fiscal conservatives.”

Joe Klein:
.
…And by “moderate“, you mean to say either “ideological centrist” or “wholly dependent on corporate largess for their elected offices“.
.
This is the first time I’ve heard the term “Senate classicists“, however.

it’s premature…to assume that the Obama Administration won’t be able to rustle up 60 or more votes for a significant, if not complete, health care reform bill.

Great, because that’s exactly what we voted for in huge numbers: Significant, If Not Complete Change We Can Believe In That Has The Support Of Sixty Votes In The Senate.
.
If there’s any way to convince the American people that their votes and elections matter, and that Democrats by and large truly stand for something, it’s by compromising and covering for a few nervous Senators.
.
With such great political advice so abundantly available from centrist pundits like you, Joe Klein and David Broder, it’s no wonder that Democratic intensity poll numbers are at all time highs!

We started asking the generic congressional ballot question in our weekly State of the Nation Research 2000/Daily Kos poll back on May 21.
.
[There]‘s a six-point Democratic lead — better than a deficit, but down significantly from the 12-point lead we saw back in late May.
.
The [numbers] shows the obvious trend — Republicans have gained nothing in the last four months, but Democrats have faltered badly.
.
Note the partisan trends — Republicans have barely budged. They’ve been home for a while. Democrats have lost among self-identified Democrats, losing a net eight points. But look at Independents, who appear more disgusted at the political process than anything. Democrats have lost 13 points among Independents–or 38 percent–but Republicans have lost 8 points as well, or 33 percent off their May levels. Meanwhile, the “not sure” numbers among Independents is up 50 percent to 42 percent.
.
We’re not seeing a partisan shift among Independents, rather a tuning out. They clearly remain unhappy with Republicans (at 16%), but are becoming disenchanted with Democrats. If the Republican message was winning the debate, Independents would be flocking to the GOP. Instead, they appear more disgusted at Democratic incompetence than policy.

So by all means, let’s hope that Rahm…err, the Obama Administration can “rustle up 60 or more votes” for an unpopular, incremental piece of watered-down legislation that leaves the real problems of our broken system untouched, and that shows the Democrats for who they really are when they are given power: weak, unprincipled, corrupt and ineffectual career politicians who pass legislation primarily to subsidize their favored industries.
.
Let’s hope that Rahm…err, Obama does everything to feed into the perception that, whatever Bush ‘n Cheney’s faults, they were principled men of action, who did what they said they would do, damn the consequences –unlike Democrats. Maybe when this is all done, we can fail at governing and at getting re-elected!
.
Thanks for this fantastic punditry, Joe Klein!

darius –

Please don’t expect senate Republicans – or bought & paid for Democrats, for that matter – to be guided by something as silly as principle. Not when there’s cash at stake. Ain’t gonna happen.

“Principle” is the selective and ephemeral talking point that gets dredged up when they haven’t got any other arguments to support their preferred outcome, and even then there’s always a principle to cite on either side of an issue, depending on which side holds the promise of more campaign funds. Under that gleaming dome it’s pretty much “Profiles in Cabbage.”

Wha’ Stuart be sayin’!
.
Yarr.

Excellent snark, Stuart. The fact is, now that it’s been thoroughly demagogued by industry and their lackeys on the right, any reform that passes had better be pretty good legislation so that it effectively debunks Republican lies pretty quickly. Unless Obama and the Democrats can sell the idea that conservatives killed reform, that’s the only shot they have.

Either Obama and Rahm don’t want a more progressive bill, even if possible, or they are too stupid for words.

Months ago, they undermined the legitimacy of the reconciliation process through their own rhetoric. If they now try and go that route, the GOP will stuff their own words in their faces.

Once again, the lessons are to negotiate from strength and to not negotiate against yourself.

Long ago, Obama should have signaled that reconciliation was a legitimate option that had been used time and again for similar legislation and that the Dems would not hesitate to go that route if necessary. That would have sent a strong signal that the burden was on the GOP to play ball or get cut out of the picture. Now we are going to see a flood of spin artists and pundits blabbering about “unparliamentary shortcuts” and other nonsense.

But, make no mistake. Don’t blame Klein. He’s just doing what he does. Blame the Dems for failing to lay the groundwork for political maneuvering.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe that we can also blame Klein for doing what he does, sqr1.

“Maybe when this is all done, we can fail at governing and at getting re-elected!”
~
Hell yeahs!
~
Taibbi in a piece I still can’t fully access: “America’s disastrous health care system is responsible for incalculable amounts of illness, death, lost productivity and federal deficit—not to mention anxiety, anger and disgrace. And it’s not going to get fixed because it’s encased in another failed system: the U.S. government.”
~
But we really should go lighter on Joe Klein, given his recent statements:
~
“As in the past, I’ll respond to serious arguments when I can. I will not respond to rants.”
~
“I find the Limbaugh-like, knee-jerk devotion of his [GG's] flock depressing.”
~
“I’ve spent a lifetime watching Democrats eat their own.” Those responsible for such cannibalism, OF COURSE, are the “purists and self-righteous political naifs” and never estab-revering centrist motherf@ckers like Klein.
~
“I’d like to see the public option dropped right now, to make life easier for all those moderates who might vote no if it is included.”
~
Translation: ‘My sympathies lie with the corporate-owned whores’

Shorter Inside-the-Beltway Concern Trolls: It’s very important that the Democrats avoid becoming a narrow-based party with ideological loyalty tests, like the Republicans.
.
The best way to avoid this mistake is to abandon their own ideas and adopt Republican ones.
~

For what? He’s just reporting the facts. There probably are a fair number of self-described “Senate classicists” who actually think that there would be something procedurally wrong with passing a bill through the reconciliation process. Even if Klein agrees with that point of view, he didn’t say so.
.
I’d wait until he actually says something ridiculous to unload.

sqr1:
.
You don’t think that his language and rhetorical framing, e.g. “moderates” instead of “conservatives” or “centrists” (or “industry shills”), “classicists” instead of “institutionalists” or “establishmentarians”, the comparison between reconciliation (once) and the elimination of the filibuster (forever), the “everything but that insignificant old public option nuisance nobody cares about anyway that can be done later”, etc. merits any criticism?

Well, stuart is postingi again from the far left liberal garbage site of Kos. But, the real truth be known Obama’s approval rating is at 42% at Zogbys, 46% at Rasmussen, and 47% at Gallup.

With those numbers, and continuing to fall, no Blue Dogs are going to risk their necks for his pipe dream of healthcare reform.

Obama has about as much chance of passing anything on healthcare now as he would getting the funding to put a man on Mars next year. It just isn’t going to happen. At least not in this President’s lifetime.

But, good try anyways.

Just so we’re clear, I completely agree with “Blame the Dems for failing to lay the groundwork for political maneuvering.“, as I am increasingly blaming them for many, many mistakes these days having to do with laying the groundwork for things.

Rusty sez: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”
~

” .. a more robust public option, which some of the moderates in the party would oppose. ..”

What are we – a loud, pretentious fourth world country?

It seems to me that if ALL denizens in many third world countries (including Kenya) have access to the health care provided by the state, then pompous Americans and others who reside in USA – which, with lots of fanfare and belligerence, parades its wealth, enlightenment and “human rights” the world over – should expect no less.

50 million Americans! That is like the entire populations several African countries living and dying with no access to health care! AHA!

“we the people, … pursuit of .. happiness”?
Would the French citizens consider guillotining or garroting those slugs of the bourgeois class that stands between them and the nirvana of security and peace of mind that comes with an assured robust health care?

rusty, your prognosis is profound. Before the polls get even worse, perhaps BHO should just throw in the towel – Palin-style.

Lets see: Did you vote for BHO last year? Did you project that BHO had even a sliver of hope at that presidency thingy?

BTW, Joe Klein:
.
Lest we get caught up in the Beltway habit of discussing the process instead of the substance ad nauseam:
.
Do you also think that it’s “premature” to imagine that “a significant, if not complete, health care reform bill” would reduce the cost of health care in the United States from over $7000 per person per year to something around the ball park of Japan’s $3400

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_2.html
.
T.R. Reid -Washington Post -Sunday, August 23, 2009
.
The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.

, or is it a foregone conclusion that, however “significant” the compromise, Americans won’t even get close to getting our money’s worth out of our broken health care system?

I am not so sure about having the sixty votes to pass this reform. At the onset it seemed this was bound to happen– but since then, there has been so much posturing and confusion that such a vote is no longer as certain.

I guess it was too much to hope for, on my part, that despite the political implications of reforming health care that some “upstanding” folks on both sides would put “cut throat” politics aside, get a real grasp of the reform, understand the need for it and vote their conscience (in this case, which means vote for the bill to pass).

This bill needs to be passed. It is required for a broken and struggling health care system.

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/

“a fair number of Senate classicists who are Democrats”

Who, beyond the (incredibly) senior senator from West Virginia would that describe? Who I like actually.

Also, I beg the Senate Majority Leader to allow an up or down vote on a bill that “would force a more robust public option”.

Let us see exactly how many Democratic Senators vote against it. This is all pre-vote posturing.

I don’t know what any of you are talking about, the administration made it clear that they would be willing to go the route of reconciliation months ago. It’s the rpess that keep poo poohing the method based on info being fed to them by their GO{P sources. They told them they might split the Bill into two parts, Obama told Todd on tee vee that he would be willing to go that route if there was no Democratic support. I don’t get how you’ll can admonish the media failure so often, but don’t seem to remember any of them.

My guess is JK thinks the 60 vote option is still tenable because now it looks like it is the only way they can stop the public option. If they take that root, they are basically turning against liberals and siding with the 50% of the independents, who traditionally vote Republican. They will also be writing off the unions, and assuming the progressives in Congress will ultimately fold up, contradicting their word.

Who knows, it may still be a safe bet they do it, given how steadfast the true believers in the fallacy of the middle ground are?

I don’t believe Joe K. should be commenting on health care.
.
He’s clearly uninterested and thus incompetent.
~

Honest question. Amidst the many plans being proposed and debated in various committees is there any plan that includes all the following:
.
1. Does not include personal mandates
2. Allows option of enrollment in a government insurance plan
3. Allows retention of current private insurance if one so chooses
4. Provides free care for lower classes not enrolled in public/private option
5. Is paid for through progressive taxation
…?
Thanks to whomever has and provides such information.

Not Senate “classicists”, please, but rather Senate mandarins – round, faintly yellow and with squishy centers when pressure is applied. Bush used reconciliation constantly, with very little in the way of squeaking from the heroic opposition. Obama can and should do the same. Mr Zechman, your prose shows signs of returning to its former luxuriant, polysyllabically-enriched, multiply-adjectivally-enhanced baroque glory. Be a Greenwald, not a Klein. Proustianically yours, as ever.

I gotta be me…

Senate classicists = crooks

Mais c’est magnifique, Monsieur Zechman! Your brevity, your Spartan severity – you are becoming the Saint Just of prose. Mille felicitations!

Did Joe the Plumber confirm for your 9/12 ‘we surround stuff’ tea bagging? I think I could get you the skull of Barry Goldwater if Mr. the Plumber passes.

Square1, it’s possible that Obama has been hoping that the Republicans would go crazy as they have, and make it clear that they would not go for any sort of bipartisan deal. At this point, the progressives would start to wake up, and push for what remains the popular choice, as polls show. That would create the opportunity for Obama to launch a counterpunch, just as the Republicans exhaust themselves. He did this pretty often during the primary and the general election, and I think it’s possible that we are about to see him do it again this time. I suspect that he’s thought all along that reconciliation would have to be part of this, and that he’s been letting the GOP foam at the mouth during August as a way of showing the country which side is serious about healthcare reform. If he plays his cards well, he has a much stronger hand than he did a month ago, despite all the rabid whack-jobs and their campaign of lies.

Either Obama and Rahm don’t want a more progressive bill, even if possible, or they are too stupid for words.
_
these options are not mutually exclusive.
_
as to Joe’s “Senate Classicists” — since this whole “reconciliation process” thing is a modern invention, as usual Joe is full of crap for pretending that there is something called a “Senate Classicist” who would object to its use. Moreover, a true “Senate Classicist” would actually support the use of reconciliation, given that a true Senate Classicist would find the abuse of the filibuster process and the obstructionist behavior of the GOP to be far outside historical Senate norms.

@sqr1: Long ago, Obama should have signaled that reconciliation was a legitimate option that had been used time and again for similar legislation and that the Dems would not hesitate to go that route if necessary…

@junius: Bush used reconciliation constantly, with very little in the way of squeaking from the heroic opposition. Obama can and should do the same…

What’s all this crap about Obama not being willing to use the reconciliation process? Obama was talking about using it at least as far back as April:

‘While some Democratic senators were reluctant to embrace the arrangement, Mr. Obama made clear at a White House session on Thursday afternoon that he favored it, people with knowledge of the session said.
…
At the White House meeting this week, Mr. Obama told senators from both parties that he did not want a health care overhaul to fail if it came up a vote shy of the 60 needed to break filibusters…

Reconciliation was never not an option.

Ask yourselves a question: Where did the notion that a health care reform bill needing 60 Senate votes come from?

That IS the problem, Exiled. There is NO PLAN. The Democrats in Congress who wrote the bill did such in their usual fashion. They have included everything in the 1000 page bill, all the PORK, new Tax Proposals from one of the biggest tax cheats on earth Rep Charles Rangel, and “end of life counseling” aka Death Panels.
.
But, NO PLAN.
.
1. Does not include personal mandates
Nothing is “mandated” in the bill.
,
2. Allows option of enrollment in a government insurance plan
Nothing in the bill calls for an option of enrollment, there is an IRS inclusion allowing other government agencies access to IRS tax records to see who may or may not be eligible for the government “insurance option”.
.
3. Allows retention of current private insurance if one so chooses
There is nothing in the bill that allows for “choice” or giving someone the option of choice between their employer provided plan or the government “option”.
.
4. Provides free care for lower classes not enrolled in public/private option
Yes, the Obama / Biden plan proposed during the 2008 election did provide for this, but there is already a plan in place called Medicaid for un-insured low income folks.
.
5. Is paid for through progressive taxation No progressive taxtion in the plan. Only to eliminate the Medicare Advantage Plan which over 1/3 of all Seniors are currently enrolled. They estimate that 500 BILLION dollars can be “saved” by eliminating this current Medicare option.
.
This is the link to the “Obama / Biden” Health Care (Reform) Plan they had during the 2008 election. This plan included the following;
.
The Obama-Biden plan
will improve efficiency and lower costs in the health care system by:
(1) adopting state-of-the-art health information technology systems;
.
(2) ensuring that patients receive and providers deliver the best possible care, including prevention and chronic disease management services;
.
(3) reforming our market structure to increase
competition; and offering federal reinsurance to employers to help ensure that unexpected or catastrophic illnesses do not make health insurance unaffordable or out of reach for businesses and their employees.
.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
.
However, they seem to have abandoned most of their original campaign healthcare plan.

It is increasingly becoming impossible for reform to get passed in the normal fashion, so of course the Dems will now say they’re open to reconciliation. Cannot say they didn’t give Republicans every opportunity to work with them. It’s the GOP that jumped ship…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

But if they go after the reconciliation option, so what if some moderate Dems don’t sign on? they only need 50 votes to pass the reform and they almost certainly have that.

Prediction: come September 15 when the Senate Finance Committee does or does not pass a bill, Obama and the WH will (after laying groundwork in the first two weeks of September) announce that despite their best faith efforts and despite having centrist Max Baucus try his best to reach agreement with republicans, it has turned out that there is no partner for reform. Regrettably this leaves two options: first to give up and do nothing and accept defeat or second to do as much reform as possible using reconciliation. The first option is simply untenable – everyone agrees on the need for reform (litany of reasons for why to be included) so we are forced into the second option.

At this point, support for reform will go through the roof because the libs that Obama has lost by supposedly not being forceful enough will come back on board and he will be able to claim a mandate for the reconciliation option using the same polls that the talking heads have been using to bash him constantly for the past 6 weeks.

Republicans in congress will then have two options – either to try to block the reconciliation process with all their might – which of course they will try to do – at which point all the stories about Bush’s use of reconciliation will come out of the woodwork; or they can try to bend a little and see if 60 votes can be found for a global bill. I doubt they’ll do the latter since they’ll have painted themselves into a corner and the path will be set.

Obama will then be able to give the finger to all the naysayers (who should rightly be supporting him now but are more focussed on carping about tactics and whining about how Obama hasn’t yet laid down his life in exchange for the public option). I also predict that those same naysayers will not be able to bring themselves to admit they were utterly wrong about the President and will instead congratulate themselves about the “pressure” they exerted on Obama to finally do the right thing.

Spot on, homerhk.

Am I wrong in thinking that’s better to let to Republicans filibuster a good bill than to pass a bad bill with 60 votes?

Of course, by “filibuster” I mean filibuster, which evidently is not what Harry Reid means by it.

Am I wrong in thinking that’s better to let to Republicans filibuster a good bill…
.
Yes.

The Repubs haven’t shown themselves to be honest actors who are sincere about fixing what’s wrong with our health care system (where’s the GOP plan, Rep. Boehner?), so giving them an opportunity to delay and bloviate beyond what they already have does nothing.
.
Not to mention the fact that there are people right now that really could use reasonable, affordable access to health care services. The time for political manuvering is long past, if there ever really was time.

As a litigation lawyer I would ask you the same thing that I ask my clients. Approach that choice with your ultimate aim in mind. Bear in mind I don’t think it’s a binary choice, as yet, but let’s assume it is and you have a choice between not passing anything but claiming a moral victory when a good bill is filibustered and passing a watered down bill that, for all its faults, will expand coverage to most of the currently uninsured.

Now, if your ultimate aim is to make yourself feel better – in the short term, mind you – and have a cathartic fight that has been building ever since Obama came into office, the first choice is the obvious one.

If, on the other hand, your ultimate aim is to do whatever you can to provide healthcare to everyone in the US, the second choice is the obvious one.

My clients often have to choose between hard hitting legal proceedings that might make them feel better -airing out all the despicable things that the other side has supposedly done – and doing what is ultimately best for themselves, that is compromising and achieving a partial success.

Again, I repeat i don’t think that that binary stage has been reached yet, but if it ultimately does, I know what I personally would recommend.

homerhk:
.
Are you suggesting that the Obama Administration planned for the health care fight to go down the way it has? Do you think that this episode is working out more or less the way that they envisioned it before this all started?

Stuart this is what I think – and it’s a personal view and sometimes not rational, I accept:

I start with the premise that, more than any other politician I can remember, Obama is who is he says he is. A person that has inherently left leaning views but also a person who understands opposing views and tries to build consensus. I do not think that is a weakness, although I know that some people do.

I also think that Obama considers the whole of America to be under his responsibility – and that includes the pro-reform movement as well as the rabid stupid wing nuts.

I think that he appreciates that he is never going to convince a certain proportion of people in the population but also on the other hand that he does not need to spend political capital convincing those who are already convinced (cf his one liner in the recent townhall where he said i don’t need to convincen you of the need to cover the uninsured).

So with all that in mind, I think that he approached this in a sort of win-win way. The preference would be to get bipartisan legislation, not just because he fetishises bipartisanship, but because it would ultimately lead to stronger legislation (in that future governments would not be able to repeal, a threat that has now been made). Also, because he came into power promising to change the tone of Washington – and that meant trying to negotiate in good faith.

Now, democrats and liberals might have thought this was naive because no republican is an honest partner and Obama might well have thought that as well but I believe he understood that if that was the case, he needed to make the country understand that. That’s the whole idea behind this party of no meme that started with the stimulus and continues to this day. the recent comments of Enzi and Grassley have helped in this vein because Obama can now portray himself as having tried everything but even the repubs that he namechecked as working in good faith have basically turned their backs to him.

I don’t think that’s specifically what he planned, of course, but I think he chose a path that left that option open to him if events evolved in the way that ultimately they have.

I also think that he was a bit surprised not at the lies of the republicans but at how much they’ve taken hold and how spineless the media has been in calling them lies. He himself said the other week that the death panel thing was an “outrageous lie”; I can’t remember another President saying something like that so boldly about something a senator from the opposing party said.

I also think that he was a bit surprised about how much the public option has come to be a litmus test of his liberal intentions. People say that he has not drawn a line in the sand but he has many many times said he will not sign a bill that doesn’t contain costs, and that he thinks that the public option is the best way to do that. He has consistently said that he is open to other ideas about how to do that – which again I think is a win-win proposition: either the ideas emerge; in which case he can adopt them and say he was flexible in negotiations; or they don’t emerge (which they clearly have not) so he can say – I gave everyone an opportunity to come up with better options, they didn’t and so public option is the way it’s going to be.

Again, i don’t think he planned any of this in terms of the precise events but he certainly struck a path that allowed for maximum flexibility with the ultimate aim of getting a law passed – which after all is the goal, isn’t it?

Pass the bill using reconciliation. Once it’s here, Universal Health Care will be as popular as Medicare, and the Republicans will only look the worse for opposing it (kind of like how they opposed Social Security, Civil Rights, and Medicare).

homerhk:

maximum flexibility with the ultimate aim of getting a law passed – which after all is the goal, isn’t it?

I appreciate the response, thanks so much.
.
I’m in the middle of some fairly technical work, so I won’t be able to respond point by point at this time (which is what your reply deserves) but:
.
With respect to the “ultimate aim”, I would hardly say that the purpose of all of this is to get “a law” passed.
.
The purpose of all of this is to fix health care in this country, which means putting into place a system that can produce health care results for the vast majority of our population commensurate with other OECD nations, at a cost that is commensurate with the average cost of health care in OECD countries.

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992
Average of OECD developed nations: $2964
Japan: $2581

Without legislation that actually accomplishes that goal, all we would have is a minutely short-term political win –and the vast majority of our people would continue to live with a system that has a high probability of failing them, and our government would remain on its unsustainable fiscal path. It’s not enough just to limit the amount of tragedies taking place every day in the lives of some of our people, we must replace our system with one in which –by design– tragedy on top of tragedy is the exception, rather than the rule.
.
We –I, an American who lives within this Kafka-esque, shareholder-driven bureaucracy– need a sustainable, well-functioning health care system, not legislation –that is the goal, don’t you think, homerhk?

fense

Please, please pass the bill by using reconciliation. I beg you.

The anger that is growing acoss this country to the bill is not limited to conservative republicans but independents and democrats as well. It will help clean out the class clowns of liberal legislators and administration in short order.

And since you folks like to harp on liars and facts; fense here is the facts on the Civil Rights legislation:

Senate
Dems 46 for – 21 against 80%
Repubs 27 for -6 against 81%

House
Dems 153 for -91 against 63%
Repubs 136 for- 35 against 79%

Overall 20% of total Repubs against
36% Demos against including Senator Byrd

LBJ pushed the bill but had a horrendous record on civil rights in the Senate

SZ, excuse me that was sloppy of me. I meant of course that he has been flexibile enough to get a law that improves the state of healthcare in the US.

I agree that not any old law will do. I think where we are in disagreement, maybe, is that you won’t be happy with something that doesn’t right all wrongs, whereas I would be happy with something that goes some way to right wrongs even if it doesn’t necessarily do everything at once.

having said all of that, put into the context of 70 years of trying to get something – anything! – and failing, achieving something now would still be a political victory.

Of course, what freeinpa fails to mention is that most of the ‘no’ votes on the Dem side came from states that made up the old Confederacy…with Dems like Strom Thurmond switching parties soon after.
.
Did you say something about liars and facts, freeinpa? How ’bout liars and numbers?…’cos under the ‘By party’ section [you lifted from Wikipedia], there’s another section called, ‘By party and region’ which gives the numbers you chose to use a different meaning.

grape_crush

Last I checked, votes are tallied up regardless of a region. Each party has a platform not one for North vs South or East vs West. Liberals on this site lump all conservatives or republicans together regardless of region or beliefs (SInce you don’t know and just assume or pretend you do.

Strom Thurmond may have switched but he was never the Imperial Wizard of the KKK as was Sen. Bryd who did not switch parties and remains a Democrat.

Nice selective interpretation though to rationalize your misuse of reality.

There is no rule that requires the Senate Majority leader submit to the floor any measures that come out of the Finance Committee or any other committee. The HELP committee bill could be used in toto, or he could choose to add or remove any portions he chooses from any number of bills to the bill that ends up on the floor.
.
Whether or not Leader Reid has the balls to ignore the FInance Committee is entirely another question.

Sorry, just a quick factual correction:
put into the context of 70 years of trying to get something – anything! – and failing, achieving something now would still be a political victory
It’s not “70 years”of trying and failing, it’s 45 years since the last time we tried and succeeded, 15 years since the last time we tried and failed.

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. The medicare program also funds residency training programs for the vast majority of physicians in the United States. Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system.[1] The Social Security Act of 1965 was passed by Congress in late-spring of 1965 and signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony President Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card.[2]

Not that this is your point, but the rhetoric of “Anything! Anything instead of another 70 years in the wilderness!” isn’t quite based in fact.

The Bush and Reagan tax cuts passed by utilizing reconciliation. Why is it suddenly an “unparliamentary shortcut”?

I don’t recall hearing the MSM refer to it in those terms at those times.

Each party has a platform not one for North vs South or East vs West.
.
/yawn
.
Is that supposed to mean something relevant?
.
Liberals on this site lump all conservatives or republicans together regardless of region or beliefs..
.
Once upon a time, the party of Lincoln allowed a range of thought to exist within their ranks. Not so much nowadays, as that trait has been inbred out of the GOP.
.
As for ‘conservatism’, in modern times it’s more of an exercise in overcoming cognitive dissonance than an actual governing philosophy.
.
They get lumped together because the space between the two is mostly nonexistent.
.
Strom Thurmond…was never the Imperial Wizard of the KKK as was Sen. Bryd who did not switch parties and remains a Democrat.
.
Byrd was an ‘Imperial Wizard’? [Prove it], liar.
.
Nice selective interpretation though to rationalize your misuse of reality.
.
Nice bit of projection you’ve got going on there, freeper.

well, as you say, you got my point. And I would actually draw a distinction between medicare and what Obama is trying now. Medicare was directed at a certain portion of the population whereas what’s going on now – or proposed to be going on now – is a pretty significant overhaul of the way the system works.

I think you and I have very different definitions of the term “pretty significant overhaul”, homerhk