home

Sanders Witholds Promise To Vote For HCR

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:32:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bernie Sanders shrewdly gets in the act:

I voted to proceed on health care reform because our current health care system is disintegrating and must be reformed. [. . .] While I voted to proceed to the health care legislation tonight, I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed.

I wonder what David Kurtz thinks about that?

Speaking for me only

< How NOT To Bargain | Saturday Night Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sanders Witholds Promise To Vote For HCR | 17 comments (17 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    IMO we need 3 Senators, (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:17:06 PM EST
    in the Democratic caucus, to refuse to vote for a Insurance Profit Protection and Enhancement bill in order to force it into reconciliation.

    If leadership is willing to compromise so that the bill has a trigger that will never be triggered and is made so weak as to seriously bite Democrats in the a$$ after implementation, both Snowe and Collins will probably vote for cloture. So I think the magic number is 3.  

    At this (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:28:26 PM EST
    point I just don't see how a decent bill passes if anything at all gets passed. There's how many that aren't going to vote for the bill at all from the Dem caucus? Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln are the "centrists" who won't vote for the bill proably but what about people like Sanders that won't vote for it? It seems that the left wing could kill the bill as much as the centrists.

    Parent
    What I keep coming back to is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:24:11 PM EST
    the question of what kind of bill would be subjected to reconciliation?

    So far, I haven't seen any indication that they would present even a fair-to-middling bill, and I think there is a good chance it may devolve into flat-out poor, since the leadership still has not gotten it into its collective head that no matter what they offer up in compromise, some of these Democrats absolutely will not accept a bill with a public option.

    From the FDL News Desk:

    Now that the remaining holdouts have made their intentions known on health care, it's worth wondering why Harry Reid added the opt out provision to his bill.

    The opt out doesn't seem to have brought along any of the critical votes needed to get to 60 votes and secure a cloture vote through the regular process. Joe Lieberman didn't want the public option before, and he doesn't want it with the opt out. Blanche Lincoln wavered before, and she seemed adamant now that the public option had to come out. Mary Landrieu, the same. Ben Nelson basically intimated this week that removing the public option would satisfy his concerns about the abortion provisions.

    The reason to add a state opt out to the public option, one would assume, would be to bring conservative Democrats on board with the bill. But it doesn't look like it's done that at all. Moreover, it doesn't give those conservatives much room to say that they extracted changes that would satisfy them. If Reid had just put in the HELP Committee's public option, he could have watered it down with an opt out, letting the Lincolns and Landrieus of the world say that they got something. Now, they'd have to essentially kill it, either with a trigger designed not to trigger, or the elimination of the measure altogether.

    This seems to be a persistent problem with the Democrats, trying to design the perfect solution, pre-compromised, and then being surprised when the conservative Dems demand more changes in their direction. The bill has of course been compromised eight ways to Sunday already, of course, and yet the axis of Nelson and Lieberman and Lincoln and Landrieu aren't satisfied.

    At this point, these conservaDems don't have the likely 60 votes to change the public option in the bill. So who knows what will happen in the future. But from a tactical standpoint, I have no idea why the opt out was introduced.

    I don't think they're finished trying to please these reluctant Dems, Harry Reid has already ruled out reconciliation, and by the time they have more or less given away all the good elements of the bill and finally see the big giant light bulb of reconciliation as their last chance, the victory obtained will be as hollow as the bill itself.

    Parent

    So there's (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:30:18 PM EST
    four definite no's and if Reid has ruled out reconcilliation it's dead.

    Parent
    A public option may be dead (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:07:22 PM EST
    with four Dems voting no but the chance for a complete give away to the various health industries is unfortunately alive and well.

    It has been apparent for a long time that Dem leadership is more than willing to pass anything, no matter how bad, stick a HCR label on it and declare it a victory.

    Parent

    And the media (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 01:15:51 AM EST
    Will be right there cheering them on.

    Even now, when listening to the promo ads for upcoming news segments, they refer to it as the "breathtaking, far-reaching, comprehensive, complete overhaul, ad infinitum cum nausea.

    Parent

    Good chance you are correct (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:19:06 PM EST
    IMO there is no chance for anything even half way decent to come out of a 60 vote process. As you say Reid will be willing to compromise and compromise and continue to compromise until nothing worthwhile remains in the bill to try and get 60 votes. Slim chance that if 3 progressive Senators force it to go  through reconciliation, that they might throw some of the worst elements out during the process. Faint hope at best.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:29:33 PM EST


    Now let's filibuster for S703! (none / 0) (#4)
    by lambert on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    The old fashioned kind, with mattresses!

    Then I can vote for Bernie in 2012!

    I got a laugh (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    out of what one of your poster's called the bill:
    "Obama's Insurance Welfare and Denial of care to women bill".

    Parent
    socialism made his brain soft (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    So Sanders really wants there to be no health bill, with the result that the Democrats will be blamed for not being able to hold their caucus together?

    Sanders (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 07:55:46 AM EST
    is not a Democrat.  He's never been a Democrat.  He's not interested in whether Democrats "get blamed for being unable to hold their caucus together."  That's exactly the kind of political, partisan pressure he's entirely aloof from.

    What Sanders won't go along with is a bill he thinks will make things worse for people.

    Parent

    Worse? (none / 0) (#14)
    by diogenes on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    Does anyone really think that this bill will make things WORSE for people than the status quo, as opposed to not improving things in the way some prefer (i.e. public option or single payor).  

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    overall it's worse than nothing at this point. Requiring people to buy junk insurance doesnt make their life better.

    Parent
    benefit - re: pre-existing conditions? (none / 0) (#15)
    by noholib on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    One thing that jumps out at me is that this bill will prohibit insurance companies from denying insurance coverage to individuals on the basis of "pre-existing medical conditions."  To me, that certainly does look like an improvement over the existing situation.  Yes?

    Parent
    Yes. Fine. Pass that bill. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    And it sounds like, listening even to Repubs yesterday, that bill could pass.  

    Much of the rest?  Not so much.

    Parent

    DK is a putz (none / 0) (#11)
    by NealB on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:28:12 PM EST
    FWIW so is Josh Marshall. Kevin Drum, same thing. They all advocated for the Iraq War. When the tough got going they got sloppy.

    It was a long time ago (seven/eight years ago). I remember what they said then. They were wrong. Kurtz. Marshall. Drum. Iglesias. Klein. Bad thinkers. Bad pundits. I remember.

    Sanders Witholds Promise To Vote For HCR | 17 comments (17 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment