home

Reconciliation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:35:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Does Harry Reid have the votes for a health care bill that does not have a public option? Does Nancy Pelosi have 218 votes for a health care bill that does not have a public option? I think the answer is no.

Today's Senate vote on bringing the Reid HCR bill to the floor for debate strikes me as a waste of time. Lieberman, Landrieu and Lincoln (Ben Nelson would likely join them) have said they will not permit an up or down vote on the Reid HCR bill. They have been instructed by their health insurance industry overlords to not permit it. I do not think 50 Democratic Senators will vote for a bill without it. Can Snowe and Collins get them to 50? Or 60 for that matter (What if Sanders and a few Senate Dems vote against cloture of a bill that does not contain a public option?) And even if they do, does Pelosi have 218 votes for that bill? (Remember the Stupak problem as well.)

I do not know if a health care reform bill can be passed through reconciliation. I feel certain it can not be passed through regular order. This is all kabuki today in the Senate. A waste of time.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Shift on Gitmo and Military Commissions | Health Care Bill Voting Today: What It Isn't >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reconciliation | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    how do we get rid of the stupak amendment (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    if that stays in, it is likely to split the party.

    How do we get rid of the vichy Dems? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    If the Dems pass a bill without a "public option" (which, at this point, is so compromised, who the f&ck cares) they will have sealed their own fates for years to come... out of office.

    Yeah. Kabuki.

    Parent

    Primary them (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    and primary Obey in the House, too, for voting for Stupak-Pitts.  He is not one of the Dems facing a tough re-election battle . . . unless he is primaried by a good Dem.  We need to do it, as the reasons for his vote on Stupak-Pitts now are all too apparent and accord with his reputation with many women pols, as I've heard behind the scenes.

    Parent
    Primary them! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:13:49 PM EST
    Primaries are a free shot - attack, attack, attack!  There's nothing to lose.

    Parent
    I don't know. We are seeing now that (none / 0) (#11)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:05:06 PM EST
    electing conservative dems can be a double edged sword. We have a big tent, yes...but within that tent there needs to be an understanding regarding the uncompromisable core issues. (REAL) Health care reform is one, but reproductive rights is another. Both need to be honored.

    Parent
    They are honoring reproductive rights (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by hookfan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:09:03 PM EST
    Women will have the right to reproduce more, whether they want to or not. Simple. . ./snark

    Parent
    ya...you now have the right not to have sex. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    ladies...

    Parent
    Couldn't agree with you more (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:11:44 PM EST
    But then, I'm a liberal.

    The whole "more and better Democrats" thing is a joke because it only ever really meant "more" and never meant "better". We're seeing the results of it now.

    Parent

    One way to look at it optimistically (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    is that perhaps Dems forgot how to lead and will learn.

    Either that or they will just become as corrupt as the GOP.

    Odds are 20/80 or worse.

    Parent

    they've (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    never known how to lead nor has the GOP really for that matter. The party needs a strong leader who will sell the public on his ideas not a spineless organizer.

    Parent
    Nor a diplomat. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    We need LBJ, or FDR.

    Parent
    You've been away for a while (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    I see...

    Parent
    Actually I have. (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 12:30:37 PM EST
    Why so hostile? You seem like you don't want to me to "play" here. Is that the case?

    Parent
    This bill (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:21:35 PM EST
    gives everyone a reason to vote against it all across the political spectrum and the more they try to "adjust" it to get more votes the worse the bill gets.

    I see the demise of Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    in the very near future.

    Parent
    One of the aspects (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    I don't like about the "safe, legal, and rare" or "abortion is terrible, but..." type of arguments for pro-choice that many Democrats use is that they undermine the outrage women/everyone should feel when a simple right for a medical procedure is in danger.  It chips away at the moral high ground women should feel when abortion rights are threatened.  And it seems we're going to need great collective support for abortion in the future.  My two cents.

    Parent
    What do you envision as the collective (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    support?   Vote no on Stupak, then vote yes for bill including Stupak, the holler you won't vote for final bill?  What a sham. Maybe Cream City is right that once young women lose freedom of choice, they will step up to get it back.

    Parent
    not just young...all those (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    women over 35 who get genetic testing...

    Sorry maam, your fetus has no brain...too bad you have to carry her to term

    Parent

    Good point. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:05:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    I agree. The only consolation I get from that is that people are going to have to actually deal with the issue and not be complacent. I know prochoice women that voted for Sonny Perdue adn that can no longer happen. People are going to have to make a decision and the GOP won't be able to continue to play both sides either.

    Parent
    I would love to believe that the (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    progressive members of the Senate would force using reconciliation to pass a good bill.

    Unfortunately, if I had to bet my house, I think that they will say they tried, but they could not stand in the way of history and even a worse bill than the Senate Finance bill would provide coverage to 30 million people who lack insurance and eliminate pre-existing conditions.

    Of course, in the meantime the progressive Dems will solicit contributions from people wanting a public option, conservative Dems will solicit contributions from the industries and anti choice folks and all Dem organizations will solicit contributions to help pass a nondescript Obama plan.

    I assume that the conservadems care more (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    about appearance than substance. So I don't understand why this vote to proceed to debate looks any better from 50 miles away than a vote for cloture on final passage. Are they really so stupid that they think this vote won't be presented as "for Obamacare" when they get plastered with ads at reelection?

    The reason this really won't work is Joe Lieberman. He is a bad faith actor, and he has decided that if he can, he is going to wreck the process. He is why Reconciliation will be essential.

    Or a variation (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:08:01 PM EST
    I would argue that Sen. Schumer's reported behind-the-scenes role is to find just one additive (even if that would disappear in conference) to bring along Sen. Snowe. (I know that the thought of "President Snowe" rankles; yet, that may be the way to move the Bill to and beyond a vote.) Agree that Sen. Lieberman represents the ultimate obstacle to this legislation; and, that is why these side deals--the Louisiana deal, for one and the Wyden expand-the-exchange deal--become so important. Recall LBJ's legislative deal-making style--it may reek to some, but it is effective. And, I'll go way out there: Don't be surprised if Lieberman would eventually turn his back on his insurance companies for the right deal. (We just don't know what that is yet.) Whether it is realpolitik or the reality community, it does seem that we need the steel to see it through.

    Parent
    Some pols you can do (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    business with and others are just unmovable, as LBJ himself once admitted.  And no halfway competent president, LBJ, JFK, Clinton or whoever, or set of congressional leaders are going to fail to look into whatever sweeteners can be added to the mix to move a key vote -- that hardly takes a special presidential style, just attention to the matter at hand.

    Regardless of the outcome, I think most here agree that having to deal with the likes of a Lieberman is usually going to turn out to be bad news.  And LBJ never had to deliver 100% of his caucus to pass a major progressive bill.  This is tough work, folks.  Lyndon had it easy by comparison, even with the longest filibuster in history on CR in '64.  

    So I cut Reid and Obama some slack at this stage.  But if Reconciliation is the only alternative in the end, at least for most parts of this bill, then obviously everything is on O and the Dems to get at least 3/4 of 1/2 a loaf done that way.  

    Parent

    Brodie, very much (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    appreciate your posts on all this, especially with the historical perspective.

    Parent
    Thanks, gyr. (none / 0) (#59)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:06:59 PM EST


    Parent
    I do think he can be bought (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:13:52 PM EST
    but I worry about what his price would be for an issue this big. Far cheaper to go with reconciliation IMO.

    Parent
    Lieberman wll not (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:32:11 PM EST
    turn his back on the insurance companies. They and the Republican voters in Connecticut are what stand between him and retirement.

    Parent
    Now, now, be fair (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:34:23 PM EST
    Joe isn't the only one.  Baucus got tons of money from the health insurance industry, Schmuer got almost $100,000 from HMOs, Blanche Lincoln got $114,000 from HMOs,  Harry Reid got $134,000, Ron Wyden got $62,000 from HMOs, Patty Murray got $177,000 from big Pharma, (and none of those numbers actually count the "insurance" industry because that industry is mixed with auto and home).

    It's not just Lieberman that stands in the way of actual progress.

    Parent

    Didn't say he was, did I? (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 07:49:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Joe has an issue somewhere (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    can't we give him something near and dear to his heart in exchange for him not being...well..himself?

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    He is wholly owned by the Connecticut-based insurance companies, always has been.  He will NEVER vote for this.  His base there is also now Republican voters.

    Parent
    Don't think Obama is willing to (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    step aside and let Lieberman be president. :-)

    Parent
    Andgarden, did you see (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:28:45 PM EST
    how many times Landrieu and Lincoln invoked a yearning for a "bipartisan" bill in their statements on the floor today?  That's their talking point if they wind up voting to bring the bill to the floor but against cloture in the end, "not enough bipartisanship.  I gave 'em a chance, but they wouldn't take it."  I think their speech writers got together on it.  I also think they know perfectly well this puppy ain't gonna pass unless it goes through reconciliation.

    Parent
    Didn't watch at all (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:34:59 PM EST
    Real work!

    Parent
    Landrieu (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    is a "yes"

    Landrieu is a "yes" only (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    on bringing the bill to the floor for debate. Have not seen her commit to voting for cloture on the final bill.

    Parent
    Until she's a "NO" in the next round. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:56:20 PM EST
    Landrieu, Lincoln, and Lieberman can all tell the voters, "We were for it before we were against it!"

    Parent
    Kabuki (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    they will join a GOP filibuster if it contains a public option.

    Parent
    Well, you said (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    Today's Senate vote on bringing the Reid HCR bill to the floor for debate strikes me as a waste of time. Lieberman, Landrieu and Lincoln (Ben Nelson would likely join them) have said they will not permit an up or down vote on the Reid HCR bill.

    So I guess that means Landrieu voted to allow the Reid HCR bill to come to the floor.

    I don't have much hope for her vote in the final bill, but no one expected her to vote this way in this vote either.

    Parent

    No one? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    Everyone did.

    My own view is that If Reid goes to reconciliation, every concession made to these folks in this bill be taken out.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    I am not sure if you are confused on this, but coming to the floor is not an up or down vote on passage.

    Parent
    I get it (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    But your own post said they would not vote to allow the bill to come to the floor, so I figured you had better information than I did.  

    Final vote scheduled for 8 pm and they expect vote on actual bill after Thanksgiving.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:13:25 PM EST
    Reread my post.

    If you got it, you would have noted my use of the phrase "up or down vote."

    Parent

    what ever happened to the (none / 0) (#13)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    "Medicare for all" business. That sounded promising.

    I am so concerned about the debate because it seems there are too many things on the table....almost anything can go. But if that is indeed the case, why not also put something really progressive on there.

    Parent

    Because there is not (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by hookfan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    the votes to pass progressive legislation. If there were, single payer would be in play, imho.
       So we get theatre, and the obligatory false stance at weakness, and whining to cover the fact that overall their real constituents are not the voters, but big corporations, in this case big insurance. Fun to watch how they set it up tho.
       I wonder how much support for "triggers" there is, since Rahm actually wants that. I also wonder how much this theatre is intended to erode support for a public option by showing it has no way to pass the full senate, and what impact, if any, that will have on any results on reconciliation.

    Parent
    I don't this it matters (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:36:54 PM EST
    if there aren't the votes for "single payer" it should be on the table as the left's starting position....if they were acting on our behalf (sigh).

    Do you really think this bill is for big insurance? I have heard that this bill does NOTHING to control costs, which is pro pharma, hospitals, medical equipment, etc. The whole problem is the tension between one side (i.e., those that benefit from high costs) and the other (insurance). The latter manipulates the public against the former, and the former responds with dirty tricks(cancellations, refusals,etc). However, dirty tricks would not be needed if costs were controlled. (Source: Frontline and This American Life.)

    Anyhow, the consumer is in the middle of it all.  

    Parent

    Imo (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by hookfan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    the insurance companies will greatly benefit from the captive market established by the mandate, and the limited effectiveness (designed) of any public option that survives due to the lack of any real clout. BTD thinks that a public option can be expanded in the future, and improved. I think that the insurance companies will prevail in limiting it even more, if not out right kill it due to their increased revenues garnered from their captive market. I also fear that the increase in premium costs (justified or not) will limit more and more actual access to care and a public option so called will be caught up in future public perception as part of the problem, rather than the path to a solution. Time will tell. . .
       Finally, attempts to put off implementation for 4-5 years or more is politically disastrous. More and more people will be without coverage, many will die. Sad if that is the price we have to pay.
    But the insurance companies will be saved! Won't that make the families of the sick and dead happy?
       The only thing I've seen on cost control is that premium increases must be "justified" to state insurance commissioners, or to a federal watchdog review. However, the 30% increases now per annum in several states have been "justified".
    No way wages can keep up with that. Justified or not insurance will now price itself out of the market and working class people will be stuck with an effective tax increase. What a mess.

    Parent
    I don't disagree with anything you've said (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    I just think it's important to understand the role of all the stakeholders here. EACH stakeholder has their interests and the insurance industry is only ONE of the powerful ones.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#48)
    by hookfan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    I won't be mandated to buy pills, or have actual treatment will I?

    Parent
    mandates are only part of the picture (none / 0) (#58)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:56:32 PM EST
    that is my point.

    Parent
    I think you are right, but (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:21:53 PM EST
    those rising costs are simply unsustainable both for the public and for business.  If whatever passes Congress does not make a real impact on those rising costs (and I agree it likely won't), then they are absolutely going to have to revisit the whole subject in a few years and in a much more serious way.  It is literally unsustainable.

    We might then have to suffer through some GOP alternative crapola for a few years, but when that not only doesn't work but makes it even worse, THEN I think you will finally start to see some serious attention to massive expansion of Medicare, heading towards single-payer as the only possible solution.

    Lucky me, if I'm still alive and kicking at that point I will be ensconced in Medicare and watching from the sidelines.

    Parent

    I don't think so. Example: Katrina. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    Plus, what will happen to Medicare w/or without the current proposals re HCR in Congress?  Many, many people rely on Medicare w/o funds to supplement from current income.  Fortunately, I am not one of them.  But it is worrisome.  Solution:  supplement income by working fast food?

    Parent
    What's Katrina got to do with it? (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:18:21 PM EST
    I see zero parallels with Katrina.

    About Medicare, I hold my breath and wait.  I honestly don't think anything that causes real problems for Medicare will last terribly long.  It's bad enough as it is in terms of access to providers who will accept it in rural areas.  I don't like to think of it, but worst comes to worst, I'll have to move back closer to "civilization" to find them.

    I've already reconciled myself to the fact that I will never, ever be able to "retire" but will have to keep working as long as I'm physically able.  That's not because of Medicare but because SS -- bizarrely -- gives you less if you're a lower-income worker during your working years.  I couldn't possibly survive on it, and my meager investments, like everybody's, have been decimated in the last couple years.

    But at least I will have some access to some health care, which I have not had now for years.

    Parent

    The relevance of Katrina is all the promises (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 12:04:22 AM EST
    but not enough action, no matter which party is in power, out of power, back in power, etc.

    Parent
    Katrina was one (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 07:48:18 AM EST
    small part of the country mostly populated by poor people hit by a sudden disaster.  I see no possible relevance to what I'm talking about.  I'm not talking about relying on anybody's promises, I'm talking about the inevitable pressures building up all over the country from an entire system that's going to crush just about everybody.

    Parent
    I admire your optimism but don't (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 04:41:06 PM EST
    share it.  

    Parent
    I absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:41:26 PM EST
    agree that even with this bill the whole subject is going to have to be revisted. So if this one fails it's no biggie and frankly it takes a huge issue away from the GOP. If this bill passes it will give the GOP a leg up on the presidency in 2012. They can take all the bad parts of the bill and make a whole winning campaign about scrapping it I woudl imagine.

    Parent
    The Medicare tax increase (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    and the expansion of Medicaid are progressive.

    The rest of the bill, except for the public option, is pure junk.

    The good news is in reconciliation, most everything else can be stripped out by the parliamentarian.

    Parent

    Is it is Reid? (none / 0) (#19)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    That is the question. I am dubious.

    Parent
    Is it IN Reid (none / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:12:28 PM EST
    as in, does he have the gonads or the ability.

    Parent
    If he wants a bill (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    He will have to do it I think.

    Parent
    I hope you're right. My fear is that (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    the bill will get worse and worse, then with reconciliation on the table, the GOP will capitulate to a bill that will be truly horrible. Perhaps, though the left will stop it at that point. It's a tug of war, and Reid has a big pair of scissors.

    Parent
    A variation on trigger... (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    or a variation on "government-run." Since we are all speculating a bit on the next step in the dance, perhaps we should consider the likelihood of the following: (A) During debate, one of the amendments brought about by Sen. Schumer's intercessions may be a variation on the earlier trigger (for Nelson and Snowe) and/or a variation on what a "government-runt" public option means (for Lincoln and, possibly, Landrieu) Since seeing Sen. Lincoln's statement that she would oppose a "government-run" option "as written" in the present bill, the door is ajar for tinkering. For example, public options certainly have some different models in western Europe that might give the gloss a Senator needs and "as written" as a qualifier is really huge in any negotiations. (B) It may well be that what is produced in the debate & amendment process offers a wee bit more to get to cloture and vote. (C) The conference committee (with WH assistance) will meld the House and Senate, as we know, and--it would not surprise me at all--voila! the return of the more pristine public option. Along the way, the "moderates" get to portray what they want to portray to their respective constituencies and the party gets what it wants or close to what it wants in the older classic type of conciliation known as conference committee. Haven't we been headed that way all along: Get as much as you can get now (through internal and external opinion pressures), then add a bit more during conference?

    Wow, seriously? (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    We get to listen to the Dems parsing what the word "public" means for the next six weeks... so that we can bring President Snowe and her V.P. Blanche Lincoln on board? For a bill that won't, in the end, accomplish any of what it was intended to when we all got charged up about it in 2008? A "variation on triggers"? THIS is what we're fighting for? THIS is what we are willing to accept?

    At some point, it might be more honest to ask what the word "democrat" means.

    This is truly pathetic.

    Parent

    No... (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:20:23 PM EST
    it is not what we are fighting for. My point is that you cut deals in situations that you don't like to get to where you want to go. Looking back: Recall that many here thought that Sen. Reid would not take it this far. He (and public opinion) did; and, here we are. What we need is a bill from the Senate--better than the Finance Committee first try. Then, we are in Conference with a new set of parameters. As for me, I would be more than surprised to see 60 votes for cloture "as written" today. But, it is indeed a kabuki dance--which is what major legislation almost always is whether we have to hold our collective noses or not. We are not talking about parsing the meaning of "public"; we are talking about finding an opening to move this legislation forward. This is sort of like the reality-based community that we all spoke so courageously of earlier on a year or so ago. Well, to move anything forward, we have to play at some level.

    Parent
    If the debate from vichy Dems (none / 0) (#64)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:14:47 PM EST
    like Lincoln, Landrieu and Lieberman is going to center around that horrid "government-run health plan!" then we are, indeed, talking about the meaning of the word "public".

    Parent
    bill will probably pass (none / 0) (#65)
    by souvarine on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    At this point I think HCR with a public option will pass the Senate. Reid has shown that the has the votes to get past procedural hurdles, and the pressure on reluctant Democratic Senators to support the President will only increase over the next few weeks. Reconciliation, while useful in reserve, will not be necessary.

    The Senate version of HCR is almost identical to the plan the President campaigned on, with the addition of an individual mandate, which I support. It is not the best plan we could have passed, but it is enough of a framework for future Democratic congresses to expand into effective universal health care. It will also open the way to make the structural changes that will constrain the growth of health care costs and resolve our long term fiscal problems.

    Once this legislation is in place a weakened Democratic majority, or even a Senate Democratic minority, will be able to buy off enough Republicans to move forward with incremental improvements.

    Perceptive summary (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:53:35 PM EST
    One question: Is the 60th vote for cloture to move to the vote from Lieberman or Snow or ?

    Parent
    Lieberman is not a problem (none / 0) (#68)
    by souvarine on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:56:03 PM EST
    Lieberman will vote for cloture. Only question is what Lincoln and Landrieu will get for their vote. Unlike the House, where Obama insisted on doing everything possible to get one (Catholic) Republican vote, I don't think Obama will reach far for a Republican vote. Snowe's committee vote gave him the "bipartisan" cover he wanted from the Senate.


    Parent
    Reconciliation | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment