Should the Dems use the reconciliation process to pass healthcare?

[Mursilis]

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.

That's totally subjective. If you don't like the filibuster (and there's a very good case to be made against it), just end it. If the Dems aren't willing to do that much to enact healthcare reform, it can't be much of a priority.

 

[cubeless]

go for it... i can't wait to see the look on the house dem's faces when the invisible ink disappears on the guarantee letter they get from reid that they'll fix the things the house doesn't like... this should be great...

 

[MotF Bane]

No.

 

[woolfe9999]

go for it... i can't wait to see the look on the house dem's faces when the invisible ink disappears on the guarantee letter they get from reid that they'll fix the things the house doesn't like... this should be great...

I think the idea is that a second bill modifying the first would already be drafted before they voted on the first, and the Senate parlimentarian would already have given an opinion that the second bill passed reconciliation requirements. This is my best guess as to how they would handle it.

I do, however, very much doubt they will pursue this course of action. I think they're going to try a scaled down bill instead.

- wolf

 

[cubeless]

I think the idea is that a second bill modifying the first would already be drafted before they voted on the first, and the Senate parlimentarian would already have given an opinion that the second bill passed reconciliation requirements. This is my best guess as to how they would handle it.

I do, however, very much doubt they will pursue this course of action. I think they're going to try a scaled down bill instead.

- wolf

oh, sorry, i meant 'disappearing ink on the second bill that reid said he would pass after they vote ok'... yeah, that's better...

and if you pull all your teeth out and throw them under your pillow tonight you'll have a nice pile of cash in the morning... try it... they know they can't trust reid...

 

[GuitarDaddy]

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.


- wolf

I would agree with you if I thought any of the legislation pending had a snowballs chance in hell of getting 60 votes in the senate, the 41 no's will unite in solidarity against anything on Obama's agenda. The only one you mentioned that might have a chance is the jobs bill, but even if it passed it would be watered down to the point of being nothing but tax credit handouts to corporations.

And frankly your logic plays right into the republicans hands, they are sincerly hoping that the administration and dem leadership aren't up for a fight and are niave enough to give bipartisanship ANOTHER chance.

When a bully repeatedly slaps you and calls you out in the street for a fight, at some point turning the other cheek is no longer an option. You either tuck your tail between your legs in defeat or you go into the street and fight.

 

[PokerGuy]

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!

You libs -- from the top (obama) all the way down STILL don't get it. This notion of "shining a light on obstructionism" etc is complete crap. The public does not want the bill as it stands now, and obstructing it is seen as a GOOD thing. Brown ran in Mass specifically on the platform of "I'll be the 41st vote, so we can block this garbage bill".

Idiot dems still think this is just the repubs trying to block something that the public wants.

 

[PokerGuy]

I would agree with you if I thought any of the legislation pending had a snowballs chance in hell of getting 60 votes in the senate, the 41 no's will unite in solidarity against anything on Obama's agenda. The only one you mentioned that might have a chance is the jobs bill, but even if it passed it would be watered down to the point of being nothing but tax credit handouts to corporations.

And frankly your logic plays right into the republicans hands, they are sincerly hoping that the administration and dem leadership aren't up for a fight and are niave enough to give bipartisanship ANOTHER chance.

When a bully repeatedly slaps you and calls you out in the street for a fight, at some point turning the other cheek is no longer an option. You either tuck your tail between your legs in defeat or you go into the street and fight.

The repubs can not stand in complete solidarity as a block on everything unless the dems give them the ammo to do it. If they try a sneak-by maneuver to get the garbage health bill passed, they provide the repubs with the ammo to stand united and block any and every Obama initiative. Further, the public would approve of it.

 

[Genx87]

They wont in an election year. That Mass election scared the shit out of the blue dogs. If Dems cant win in Mass, Blue Dogs are in big trouble in more moderate and red states.

 

[PokerGuy]

They wont in an election year. That Mass election scared the shit out of the blue dogs. If Dems cant win in Mass, Blue Dogs are in big trouble in more moderate and red states.

At first I thought the public really voted more on a local "I prefer Brown over Coakley" issue, but many subsequent polls show they really voted specifically to make Brown the 41st vote to kill the bill. Between that and the VA and NJ elections, the blue dogs have to be scared to death. They know that if they let the Pelosi-nutjob wing continue to drive the process, they are going to get slaughtered.

 

[nageov3t]

if they wanted to actually reform healthcare, reconcilation is the way to do it.
if they want to preserve their seats, it's not.

 

[cubby1223]

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.

The Dems don't care. They truly believe they are doing what is best for us people, that we are just too dumb to realize the legislation's greatness.

 

[Robor]

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

This! :thumbsup:

Edit: WTF happened to the thumbs up thing?

 

[Jhhnn]

At first I thought the public really voted more on a local "I prefer Brown over Coakley" issue, but many subsequent polls show they really voted specifically to make Brown the 41st vote to kill the bill. Between that and the VA and NJ elections, the blue dogs have to be scared to death. They know that if they let the Pelosi-nutjob wing continue to drive the process, they are going to get slaughtered.

Source?

 

[lothar]

Absolutely not.

 

[Ozoned]

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.

The use of the filibuster is a good tool to protect the people from a corrupt party majority that is willing to vote against the people.

I understand why you call it abuse, even though you are wrong.

 

[Ozoned]

Source?

Browns platform was " I am the 41st vote against health care"

 

[Ozoned]

The Dems don't care. They truly believe they are doing what is best for us people, that we are just too dumb to realize the legislation's greatness.

..

 

[Double Trouble]

Source?

I don't know what sources pokerguy saw, but the Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll done after the election leaves absolutely no doubt that it wasn't just a case of voters liking Brown over Coakley.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203167.html

Of particular note:

Nearly two-thirds of Brown's supporters say their vote was intended at least in part to express opposition to the Democratic agenda in Washington

I still think the GOP is overestimating the meaning of the election, and underestimating the impact of Coakley just being a lousy candidate running a crappy campaign. Still, I don't think there's any doubt that the vote was at least in some part a sign to tell the Dems to "slow down" with the health care bill push.

 

[werepossum]

I don't know what sources pokerguy saw, but the Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll done after the election leaves absolutely no doubt that it wasn't just a case of voters liking Brown over Coakley.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203167.html

Of particular note:

I still think the GOP is overestimating the meaning of the election, and underestimating the impact of Coakley just being a lousy candidate running a crappy campaign. Still, I don't think there's any doubt that the vote was at least in some part a sign to tell the Dems to "slow down" with the health care bill push.

I think it was more a sign to tell the Dems to "go away" with the health care bill push.

I want the Pubbies to take Congress, but I want them to earn it. I want them to be a sweating pile of anxious bitches before they win. Else we'll just have a slightly reduced drunken meth-boiled binge spending spree targeted at a slightly different group.

 

[Double Trouble]

I think it was more a sign to tell the Dems to "go away" with the health care bill push.

I don't think so, I'd bet that the vast majority of the public is in favor of taking some pretty big steps to try and improve or fix healthcare, but they are not at all on board with the current bill and the process used to come up with it (back room deals, late night votes, procedural tricks etc etc etc). Most reasonable people are angry with how congress has handled this and wants them to come up with a well thought out bill that has support from both parties. They also want a magic unicorn pony for their daughter, but that isn't going to happen either

I want the Pubbies to take Congress, but I want them to earn it. I want them to be a sweating pile of anxious bitches before they win. Else we'll just have a slightly reduced drunken meth-boiled binge spending spree targeted at a slightly different group.

Yeah, we've already seen that the repubs are certainly no better in terms of fiscal restraint. Gridlock, where the president is from one party and the congress dominated by the other, is our best chance of containing spending and getting some decent legislation.....

 

[boomerang]

I think they don't have a hair on their ass if they don't. The public does not want this bill in this form. Poll after poll shows that. Congress and the White House have repeatedly shown us through their words and actions that what the people want does not matter.

I want them to put this through using reconciliation. It will bury the progressive movement so deep that it will never see the light of day again. The whole lot of them can then scurry off to Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or wherever in the world their ideologies are the rule of law.

The next Congress can undo it all. None of it takes effect except the tax hikes and fees until well after the next Congress is seated. The people will be giving up nothing. They will only have more money in their pockets. Should be a piece of cake to kill the whole thing.

 

[Carmen813]

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.

In my eyes this is losing a battle to lose the war. Dems are going to lose seats in 2010 no matter what. Voting for it won't make the people who are against it significantly angrier, and not voting for it will significantly demotivate the Democratic base (it was the #1 issue for Democrats in the 2008 primaries).

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Sure, if they want to get swept out of office in greater numbers than the 1994 election. The American people are tired of all these backroom politics and secret handshake deals. Ramming through massive health care reform using a budgetary trick would be the shadiest of the shady.

Health care reform needs to go back to the drawing board and include honest discussion from both sides. The chances of that actually happening, however, appear to be very slim...so we are all screwed.