Is it true? After all the compromises and kowtowing, Democrats are finally figuring out there never were, and never will be any Republican votes improving Health Care? Might as well use reconciliation to remove all the compromises made to Republicans, such as putting back in the goddamn public option.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Ima gonna bring it through in reconciliation. >> ^Sarzy:
@dag -- I was kind of joking about my voting error before, but this is actually fairly close. Assuming it's possible, please subtract my "yes" vote and add it to "no". Unless you want to George W. Bush this vote.

@LarsaruS, without getting too into the weeds, what's happening is that in the Senate you need a 3/5ths majority (60 votes) to pass a motion to end debate and bring a bill to a vote. A filibuster is when people vote against ending debate to prevent legislation from coming to a vote that would otherwise pass.

Reconciliation is a special procedure for introducing budget-oriented bills, and has a built in 20-hour cap on debate, after which the bill automatically proceeds to a vote.

The reason why you can't do everything that way is because of something called the Byrd rule, which limits reconciliation only to things that directly affect the budget -- for example, reconciliation can and has been used to pass tax cuts, or expand existing entitlements, but it can't be for regulatory changes, like individual mandates, a ban on denying people for preexisting conditions, etc.

Of course, there's also an oft discussed end run around that -- the Senate parliamentarian is who judges whether a bill is fit for reconciliation or not, and the majority has the power to fire and replace the parliamentarian...

Basically, long story short, nothing really holds Democrats back except political fallout. At this point, with all the fake outrages being trumped up by the other side, I doubt many would even notice if Democrats did something so mild and defensible as restoring majority rule to the Senate.

Yeah democrats who are attempting to have a conversation about health care and include republicans really do have to say that they tried. Shep is probably right that there's no damn chance republicans will want to cooperate. But they still have to be given the opportunity.

And reconciliation will kill bi-partisanship? If repubs have demonstrated anything over the last year it's that they're aggressively not interested in bi-partisanship. They collectively have their reelection strategy in place; criticize everything and pass nothing. And why weren't they concerned with reconciliation killing bi-partisanship when the Bush administration used it TWICE to pass tax cuts for the wealthy? Surely the Obama administration has at least one coming their way.

Though honestly I wouldn't care if they just nuked the filibuster. Or whatever they like to call it. It has always seemed like a weaselly abuse of rules.

They didn't include video of him saying why he's blocking it? Good form.

Anyway, from what I can gather his basic argument is that the extension should be paid for rather than just tacking it onto the deficit (sorta like pay-as-you-go). He specifically wants TARP money to pay for it, though I'm not sure if it would be at the expense of other programs.

This isn't to defend him, I just like to hear a person's reasons before judging their actions.

The benefits will likely expire before anything can be done to circumvent his objections. I doubt he cares about the political ramifications since he is retiring soon. If nothing else, his example will be a great one for Dems wanting to bypass the filibuster on health care reform through reconciliation.


Edit: Some other fun tidbits.
-Bunning is the only Republican trying to block this measure (that I know of at least).
-When Jeff Merkley (D) asked him to drop his objection, Bunning's reply was "tough shit".
-Bunning is upset that these proceedings caused him to miss a basketball game.

I don't get the US system as I'm not American... Why wont he just tell all the Republicans to go fuck themselves and not to come in to work for the next 3 or so years as they are not doing their job anyways and just use reconciliation and push everything through without them. Or can't the president just issue an executive order and push the public option through?

Anyone care to explain?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
That's good to hear that there are left vs. left debates. However, are these mostly just folks on the far-left of the political bell curve 'pushing harder even if it means we lose'? As long as that's the dominant liberal paradigm, they don't seem to me to be reliable societal partners who can be reasoned with.
Not really. I mean, right now, that's where the nastiest fights are, but that's because you really have a simple binary choice to make when it comes to HCR right now -- either you want House Democrats to pass the Senate bill, or you want them to vote against it. You can say other things when you talk to them, of course, like "you should be working on eliminating the filibuster", or "after you pass the Senate bill, they can pass amendments to it via reconciliation", but ultimately you need to address the straight up for/against question on the Senate bill.
Generally speaking, I would say that most of the left vs. left debates start from the liberal premise that government action can have a positive effect on individual and collective freedom. Great, so what goals do we have? What policies or laws would achieve them? Which issues should get the most attention? That's usually most of the debating space.
To me, it seems easy to build a cohesive coalition around negative action -- like cutting taxes and regulation no matter what it's for -- but trying to get liberals to coalesce around a particular health care plan can be challenging, even when we've got a common set of goals (reduce costs, make coverage available to everyone, make coverage reliable).
There's plenty of debate when you get into details and mechanics on how you accomplish those things.
It seems to me like it must be boring to be part of a conservative movement. You've got one, universal answer to every question: cut the size of government. To me, that seems like the soul of anti-intellectualism. Even conservative "intellectuals" seem to spend most of their time either inventing philosophical arguments to support their predilections, or saying that liberals suck because they sometimes get things wrong.


Good. Well, if you run for office (lord knows we need it), you've got my vote

>> ^chilaxe:
That's good to hear that there are left vs. left debates. However, are these mostly just folks on the far-left of the political bell curve 'pushing harder even if it means we lose'? As long as that's the dominant liberal paradigm, they don't seem to me to be reliable societal partners who can be reasoned with.

Not really. I mean, right now, that's where the nastiest fights are, but that's because you really have a simple binary choice to make when it comes to HCR right now -- either you want House Democrats to pass the Senate bill, or you want them to vote against it. You can say other things when you talk to them, of course, like "you should be working on eliminating the filibuster", or "after you pass the Senate bill, they can pass amendments to it via reconciliation", but ultimately you need to address the straight up for/against question on the Senate bill.

Generally speaking, I would say that most of the left vs. left debates start from the liberal premise that government action can have a positive effect on individual and collective freedom. Great, so what goals do we have? What policies or laws would achieve them? Which issues should get the most attention? That's usually most of the debating space.

To me, it seems easy to build a cohesive coalition around negative action -- like cutting taxes and regulation no matter what it's for -- but trying to get liberals to coalesce around a particular health care plan can be challenging, even when we've got a common set of goals (reduce costs, make coverage available to everyone, make coverage reliable).

There's plenty of debate when you get into details and mechanics on how you accomplish those things.

It seems to me like it must be boring to be part of a conservative movement. You've got one, universal answer to every question: cut the size of government. To me, that seems like the soul of anti-intellectualism. Even conservative "intellectuals" seem to spend most of their time either inventing philosophical arguments to support their predilections, or saying that liberals suck because they sometimes get things wrong.

>> ^Fjnbk:
The Democrats should calm down, have a nice drink, then either pass the Senate bill along with procedures for fixing it via reconciliation, or rapidly finish negotiations on the merged bill and pass that, all before Brown is in office.
By the way, if you're in the U.S., now would probably be a more effective time than ever to call your representative and encourage them to take one of those paths (the first one is probably more feasible). Right now, none of the Democrats have any idea what to do, and they could really use some guidance in a direction away from caving to the Republicans again.


Oh, yeah!

That's always worked wonders.

"Hi, I'm the thousandth person whose name is nobody and who is worth nothing."

Neigh...

We must steal their heart.

The Democrats should calm down, have a nice drink, then either pass the Senate bill along with procedures for fixing it via reconciliation, or rapidly finish negotiations on the merged bill and pass that, all before Brown is in office.

By the way, if you're in the U.S., now would probably be a more effective time than ever to call your representative and encourage them to take one of those paths (the first one is probably more feasible). Right now, none of the Democrats have any idea what to do, and they could really use some guidance in a direction away from caving to the Republicans again.

Okay, you invoke the phrase "checks and balances" -- at least in my civics education, that was always defined as the interactions between the 3 co-equal branches of government, the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, aka The President, The Supreme Court, and the Congress, and the various ways they can veto (and override) one another.

The Constitution sets up the Senate as a majority rule house, that's why there are two Senators from every state, and a Vice Presidential tie-breaker. The filibuster itself is more of a bug in the rules of the Senate that has been exploited, and never has been exploited this much at any other time in the history of the United States. The only major legislation that was held up before the 1990's by filibuster was the civil rights act. The period for debate on the Senate health care bill was the second longest in history -- the only one longer was the debate on entering World War I (the debate on de-funding the Vietnam war, Civil Rights, and Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton's impeachment...all shorter).

Now we can't even get Republicans to agree to a vote on confirming Obama's appointee for the TSA (though that one's a hold, not a filibuster, at least not yet).

You say the bill would've been improved by the minority. In what way? I've followed this process closely, and I've heard of no proposal Republicans have made that would have included something they wanted, in return for something Democrats would have wanted. They were all proposals that would've only gutted a core aspect of the legislation, or they were non-controversial and passed on a bipartisan or unanimous basis. Despite the latter amendments (of which there were many in committee), Republicans have demagogued throughout about how they'd been "shut out" of the process. Republicans outside the process (like yourself) have echoed this, loudly, despite the basic reality of it -- they had a seat at the table, they just weren't willing to make any concessions at all.

For example, Obama literally said to Republicans that he's open to incorporating their version of tort reform into the bill, but wanted to know what they'd be willing to give him in return for it. Their answer: nothing.

As far as the mid-terms, I do think Democrats are likely to wind up losing a net of 1-3 Senate seats in 2010, meaning they'll still be at the exceedingly large majority of 57-43, and they'll probably still have a 50+ seat majority in the House. So what then?

What incentive is there for Republicans to work with Democrats if being obstinate pricks gives them electoral success? Their maximum incentive to make deals comes when they're so far in the minority it's the only way to influence legislation -- a 60-40 Democratic majority, say. But the Republican party of today is still refusing to compromise even under those circumstances. If they win elections based on that in 2010, why wouldn't they just double down, and hold Congress hostage from 2011-2013 and force Democrats to either pass nothing, or pass Republican legislation? Then, after that shoot to win the White House on a campaign that says "kick those do-nothing uncompromising socialist Democrats out"?

Personally I think the filibuster needs to go precisely because of that dynamic. A time will come again in my lifetime where the shoe is on the other foot, and I guarantee you that I'm going to be telling Democrats to filibuster everything Republicans do, big or small (unless Republicans transform into a very radically different party). I'd rather see the Republicans and Democrats pass their legislative agendas, and let the American people hold them accountable for the results, without letting our representatives wiggle out of their promises with "but the minority party we crushed in the last election wouldn't let us do it!" I think it would moderate the campaign promises, as well as break us out of this cycle that keeps us perpetually saddled with a status quo that few are happy with.

Also, remember how angry you were that they pushed Bush's tax cuts through via reconciliation rules because it broke down the fundamental checks and balances of our Democracy?</snark>

I wish they would've had the balls to privatize social security that way. We'd have wound up with President Howard Dean in '04.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Did you hear that, Obama? Stop pussyfooting about the public option. Just push it through via reconciliation. The Republicans don't want to help; they want just want to kill it outright. You campaigned with the slogan "Change." Well now is your chance.

Yeah good plan. Push through a bill that's a steaming pile of shit and isn't the best for the American people. And before someone says "but what's your idea for a bill..." I've posted it several times. Take CHA, modify to fit US, dance a few songs. Be happy. But no you think you need to have a 1200sec. bill that oozes BS all over it instead of something that can do all the work and be under 25 sections in plain English.

Let me repeat myself for the sake of repeating, you can want something that's in the best interests of all your citizens. But you'd better do it properly the first time. Luckily the US has other nations, and other countries(hint hint) who are built on a similar architecture(hint Canada hint) of power sharing, with federal power. If it's so unwieldly that the average citizen can't understand it, than the bill is absolutely useless.

That's what you have now, that's what's wrong. That's why it shouldn't pass. That's why it should be simple, easy to understand, and be left to each individual state.

"No major political battle can be won without strong, decisive leadership at the top political level making the message clear and the argument solid as to why their citizenry should support it."

Did you hear that, Obama? Stop pussyfooting about the public option. Just push it through via reconciliation. The Republicans don't want to help; they want just want to kill it outright. You campaigned with the slogan "Change." Well now is your chance.

In all fairness, EDD, you aren't the one who interprets the law, governmental officials will be the ones doing that... You say page 59 cannot be interpreted as the government having access to everyones account, and the ability to make automated withdrawals:

"(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice

But what exactly does "automated reconciliation" entail? Are you suggesting this is just an innocent automated bill pay feature ala Wells Fargo. If that is the case why does such an innocuous feature need a LAW to enforce it. A law suggest a crime, and a crime suggests jail time. How can this mean anything other than failing to supply an account for automated fund transfer is a crime punishable by jail or fines?

By the way, its clear you haven't looked at the document or you would have noticed this on page 58:

"(D) enable the real-time (or near real- time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;"

I think your call of "lies" needs to be retracted...

300 pages, 1000 pages, whatever. If this is the START what will this program look like in ten years?

BS.

And I can't believe you fell for this shit. You too, mr.stellar. Do you honestly want this to be the truth SO BAD, you won't give the claims even a cursory lookup? Me, not an American, not a constitutional prodigy either, but even for me it only took a couple of glances to determine this is 100% pure bullshit. The very first Google search verified this:

“Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.”

TRUTH: Page 59 continues the discussion of administrative standards, and authorizes electronic transfers of money within the government. In no way does this provision grant the government access to individual bank accounts. Here's what it actually says:

‘‘The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to… (C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;"


“Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.”

TRUTH: This is a gross overstatement. For the purposes of determining affordability credits for Americans who need financial assistance in purchasing health insurance, employees of the Health Choices Administration will have access to tax information that the federal government already keeps. As is clearly stated on page 196, “Return information… may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.”

More point-by-point rebuttal of this BS: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2009/07/deconstructing-the-right-wing-lies-health-bill.html#more

Hell, don't just take some nameless hack's word for it, ffs, look it up yourself: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

So yeah, blatant *lies.