Should the Dems use the reconciliation process to pass healthcare?

[GuitarDaddy]

Now that the Republicans have the 41 votes needed to procedurally block the UHC legislation should the Democrats use the reconciliation procedural process to pass some form of healthcare reform with less than 60 votes?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Simply put - no. Drive a stake through that piece of trash bill and do it right.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not sure. Ideally they'd make the bill more progressive, more what the people - not necessatily a miniority of Republicans - want - and get the 60 votes they shouldn't need but for Republican abuse.

I'd have to look at what they could versus could not get done in reconciliation, which is limited to money-related topics.

I haven't decided their best way to respond to the Republican abuse yet. Too bad too few of the American people see it for what it is and blame the Repubicans for bad behavior.

 

[Jhhnn]

Only if it's more like the HOR bill, with a strong public option. Otherwise, force it to a vote of failure so that the public can see just who stands where. Give repubs a pyrrhic victory, roast 'em over their own fire later.

It's not just Repubs, Craig, it's also a few rogue Dems who really need a beat down... figuratively speaking, of course...

 

[Craig234]

Only if it's more like the HOR bill, with a strong public option. Otherwise, force it to a vote of failure so that the public can see just who stands where. Give repubs a pyrrhic victory, roast 'em over their own fire later.

It's not just Repubs, Craig, it's also a few rogue Dems who really need a beat down... figuratively speaking, of course...

Oh, I agree, but the issues are a bit different. Some corproatist Dems were out to corrupt the bill, while Republicans are the ones abusing the filibuster to try to veto the bill.

 

[Carmen813]

Yes, use it to eliminate the most controversial pieces of the Senate bill (cornhusker kickback and louisiana purchase). I'd even float the idea of using it to re-instill a public option similar to what was in the House bill (the public option still enjoys majority support and was relatively modest). I'd also consider some modest tort reform being included.

Short term it will very likely be an unpopular decision. Doing what is right often is. I'm partisan on this issue to the extreme, but I gave the Republican's final bill proposal a shot and read it. The reason it's so short is because it does essentially nothing to fix the long term problems with costs and to instill consumer protections. It's a band-aid applied to an arterial bleed.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

An interesting note: In researching the history of the filibuster it seems that history proves the success of a filibuster increases dramatically the closer it is to the closing of the cogressional session while filibusters initiated early in a session are much less likely to succeed.

It seems one option for the Dems would be to bring the healthcare legislation to a vote early in this session, forcing the Republicans into a prolonged filibuster during the runup to the November congressional elections, and hope that it was so distasteful to the voting public that the GOP would feel the backlash in the November elections.

 

[StageLeft]

no

 

[drebo]

An interesting note: In researching the history of the filibuster it seems that history proves the success of a filibuster increases dramatically the closer it is to the closing of the cogressional session while filibusters initiated early in a session are much less likely to succeed.

It seems one option for the Dems would be to bring the healthcare legislation to a vote early in this session, forcing the Republicans into a prolonged filibuster during the runup to the November congressional elections, and hope that it was so distasteful to the voting public that the GOP would feel the backlash in the November elections.

I don't think that would happen. The public doesn't want the bill as it currently stands (and why would they? It accomplishes nothing and adds nothing but taxes and fines to the middle class (unless you're a crony to the current administration, of course)). The Republican filibuster of this bill is not done out of spite, but rather because the bill itself is a bad idea*.

* Note: I do not believe the current crop of republicans in Congress can or would do any better, and I would support a Democratic filibuster of a Republican bill as well (even though that WOULD be done out of spite), because in this instance, no bill is better than any bill.

 

[eggshin]

Repubs used reconciliation several times during the last admin iirc. Whats good for the goose..blah blah.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I don't think that would happen. The public doesn't want the bill as it currently stands (and why would they? It accomplishes nothing and adds nothing but taxes and fines to the middle class (unless you're a crony to the current administration, of course)). The Republican filibuster of this bill is not done out of spite, but rather because the bill itself is a bad idea*.

* Note: I do not believe the current crop of republicans in Congress can or would do any better, and I would support a Democratic filibuster of a Republican bill as well (even though that WOULD be done out of spite), because in this instance, no bill is better than any bill.

So to recap

If repubs filibuster a dem bill it's because the bill is bad, but if dems filibuster a repub bill its out of spite. and no bill is better than ANY bill.

Well that narrows it down quite a bit, you must be either an insurance company/ pharma exec or your a republican senator

 

[woolfe9999]

My understanding of what has been contemplated by the dems is as follows. They could pass the Senate version of the bill in total, then submit an amendment to it which would go through by way of reconciliation.

The total bill could never be done by reconciliation. Whatever they could get through by that process what be a gutted bill with no insurance reform.

I think the idea is this - since the major point of disagreement between the Senate and House versions is the tax provisions, they could modify those provsions through reconiliation to make them reflect the compromize that the Senate and House dems have come to in conference.

A public option they could not add by way of reconiliation. That is creating a new government program, and you can't do it by reconciliation.

You might be able to get rid of the Nebraska compromize by reconciliation since that is a funding measure.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

My understanding of what has been contemplated by the dems is as follows. They could pass the Senate version of the bill in total, then submit an amendment to it which would go through by way of reconciliation.

The total bill could never be done by reconciliation. Whatever they could get through by that process what be a gutted bill with no insurance reform.

I think the idea is this - since the major point of disagreement between the Senate and House versions is the tax provisions, they could modify those provsions through reconiliation to make them reflect the compromize that the Senate and House dems have come to in conference.

A public option they could not add by way of reconiliation. That is creating a new government program, and you can't do it by reconciliation.

You might be able to get rid of the Nebraska compromize by reconciliation since that is a funding measure.

- wolf

The Nebraska payoff is already reqested to be removed by Sen. Nelson, and would come out in reconciliation.

 

[Mursilis]

I'm not sure. Ideally they'd make the bill more progressive, more what the people - not necessatily a miniority of Republicans - want - and get the 60 votes they shouldn't need but for Republican abuse.

What is this abuse of which you speak? Use of the filibuster?

 

[Moonbeam]

Americans should shoot for free euthanasia if they get sick and can't pay. They are too stupid to deserve health care.

 

[Craig234]

What is this abuse of which you speak? Use of the filibuster?

No, use is what you see in most of American history to delay a vote on an issue of particular importance to someone, not as a total veto of 70% of major legislation by a 40% minority.

 

[ElFenix]

dems should call the filibuster bluff.


and they should do it with a public option bill. the PO is rather popular, last i checked.

 

[woolfe9999]

The Nebraska payoff is already reqested to be removed by Sen. Nelson, and would come out in reconciliation.

I understand that Nelson has requested its removal. The question is whether it could be removed by way of reconciliation. Remember, the issue here is not whether they can pass a full heathcare reform bill by way of reconiliation. They absolutely cannot. The Senate parlimentarian would reject it. The idea here is that the House passes the Senate bill exactly as is, then they try to pass a second bill, which is an amendment to the first bill, by way of reconciliation. What they could amend by reconciliation is the question. As I said, I think they could amend the tax provisions, maybe get rid of the Nebraska deal. They couldn't add a public option to it as that does not satisfy reconciliation requirements.

To be clear, my understanding is that Howard Dean and others who have pushed for reconiliation are way off base - a comprehensive reform bill could never be done that way. So any idea of using reconciliation is premised on the assumption that the House must first pass the Senate bill as is.

- wolf

 

[GuitarDaddy]

dems should call the filibuster bluff.


and they should do it with a public option bill. the PO is rather popular, last i checked.

I'm starting to come around to this conclusion also. Not only would it shine a light on the Republican obstructionism, it would also show the modern use of the filibuster as a veto power for the minority as the corrupt misuse of a procedural measure that it is.

FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER OR BUST!

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm starting to come around to this conclusion also. Not only would it shine a light on the Republican obstructionism, it would also show the modern use of the filibuster as a veto power for the minority as the corrupt misuse of a procedural measure that it is.

FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER OR BUST!

They should also have to actually filibuster, not just threaten to and all channels and media should be mandated to cover only that while it takes place. No watching a reality show while the senate holds the country hostage.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm starting to come around to this conclusion also. Not only would it shine a light on the Republican obstructionism, it would also show the modern use of the filibuster as a veto power for the minority as the corrupt misuse of a procedural measure that it is.

FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER OR BUST!

Would going through this kind of protracted process just to make a political point be in the public interest right now? Especially when there are other pieces of important legislation pending, like a jobs bill, energy bill, and financial reform, all of which have passed the House and are waiting to be heard by the Senate.

My feeling is that either the House passes the Senate bill in total, then a second bill that modifies the tax/budget portions of the first bill is passed by reconcoliation, or else they go for a bi-partisan, and scaled down version of the bill. Since I like the bill, the first option IMO is more in the public interest but much worse politically for the dems, while the second option could result in a bill that benefits the public but to a lesser extent, and is politically better for the dems. IMO these are the only two viable options.

- wolf

 

[cubby1223]

I'm not sure. Ideally they'd make the bill more progressive, more what the people - not necessatily a miniority of Republicans - want

Let me guess - you're one of those who buys in to the theory that the votes in VA, NJ, and especially in MA were in fact votes *for* a "progressive" utopia...

 

[Fizzorin]

If the Dems use reconciliation to pass some sort of reform, reform that Americans are strongly against, it will come back to bite them in the ass in later elections. It's in their own best interest not to.

Lose the battle, win the war.

 

[drebo]

So to recap

If repubs filibuster a dem bill it's because the bill is bad, but if dems filibuster a repub bill its out of spite. and no bill is better than ANY bill.

Well that narrows it down quite a bit, you must be either an insurance company/ pharma exec or your a republican senator

That's not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that the Republicans are filibustering THIS PARTICULAR BILL because it is bad, but the Dems would filibuster a Republican bill regardless because of spite.

Edit: Either way, I still support any filibuster from any side of any federal healthcare bill.

 

[cubby1223]

There is no way the Dems can pass a new entitlement program through reconciliation. As I understand it, there are very specific rules in place as to what legislation can be passed through under this procedure - something like even down to every single sentence must deal more with budget numbers than with policy. Each sentence can be challenged and each challenge must be passed by a 60 vote majority.

So just imagine a 2,700 page monstrosity shoved through reconciliation challenged by Republicans on every single sentence...