AP editorializing reconciliation

[DrToast]

HELENA, Mont. — U.S. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana says a health care overhaul will happen this year even if Republicans back out of bipartisan talks under growing public pressure and that the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy could help hold together a compromise deal.

Baucus is leading a panel of two other Democrats and three Republicans that is being watched closely by everyone from the White House and beyond. Chances of a bipartisan breakthrough appear to be diminishing in the face of an effective public mobilization by opponents during the August congressional recess.

But Baucus says the bipartisan deal is still alive. He said he still speaks frequently with Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Michael Enzi of Wyoming.

"I think the chances are still good," Baucus told The Associated Press in an interview Monday. "I talked to them, and they all want to do health care reform. But the sad part is a lot politics have crept in. They are being told by the Republican Party not to participate."

If it falls apart, Democrats will have to turn to the "nuclear option" – forcing through an inferior bill through a process that only requires 51 votes instead of 60, Baucus said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/31/baucus-health-care-reform_0_n_273366.html?view=print

Shit like this really pisses me off. Who would have thought that a passing legislation through a majority vote would be considered the "nuclear option"!?!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. What should really piss people off is that this is how the Repukes forced through their tax cuts

for the wealthy...the same ones that we'll be paying for for decades to come.

The Republicans resorted to Reconciliation at least 5 times. How come when they do it, it's good public policy. But when the Dems do it, it's tyranny of the majority???!?!?!? :puke:

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Because reconciliation was intended for taxes and entitlements

You can certainly argue that the entire reconciliation process was designed in the interests of conservative since the first thing they always do when they get in office is cut taxes. But that's, unfortunately, the way the rules were written.

[brooklynite]

2. It's a reasonable description...

Set aside the merits of Health Care. The Senate has developed rules which are frustratingly slow, but which are intended (rightly or wrongly) to avoid the rash decision that the more partisan House might make. If you change the rules this time, you set a new precedent that can be applied the next time the Republicans are in charge. Not saying its not worth the cost, but be aware of the implications.

[depakid]

3. Ron Fornier spreading propaganda