I think the crux of the problem is that supporters of Health Care reform don't have leverage.

[Skinner]

The posts here on DU and elsewhere in in the progressive blogosphere notwithstanding, the reality is that the watered down reform we now face is an improvement over the current system. Anyone in the US Senate with a conscience and a brain knows this. (I think everyone here on DU knows it too, even though we don't want to believe it.)

And Joe Lieberman knows it (even though he has a brain but no conscience). Therefore, he is in the catbird seat. Even if 59 senators are on board with a stronger health care bill, Lieberman knows he can dictate the terms or sink the entire thing. I know it's not considered good form to question anyone's motivations, but I think Lieberman's recent health care policy flip-flops strongly suggest that he is not acting in good faith. He's playing the spoiler, possibly as payback against progressives who opposed him for Senate, or possibly to appeal to Republicans in Connecticut in preparation for his next campaign.

If someone on the left makes a similar threat to sink the entire bill, it won't be taken seriously. Think about it: Lieberman has already made clear that he is willing to sink the bill if he doesn't get what he wants. If a Senate progressive steps up and says "no more compromises," Lieberman would almost certainly bolt.

So what can be done to gain some leverage on our side? I'll be honest: I think it would be tough. I am not an expert on the US Congress, and I don't know all the political or procedural tricks available. But I think there are some things we could try. The problem is that any of them would involve the risk that the entire bill would get killed. And frankly, I'm not sure that's a risk that most Democrats in the Senate want to take. But here are a few ideas:

Make the opponents filibuster. The use of the filibuster has increased dramatically over the years. It used to be something used only in extreme circumstances, but now it has become so routine that the Senate no longer even pretends they can pass something with 51 votes. And as far as I know, it's been years since anyone has actually had to back up their filibuster threat with an actual filibuster. Someone may want to double-check, but I think Majority Leader Reid has the power to stop all other Senate business while they debate health care. If opponents want to filibuster, make them do it. You think health care supporters are energized now? Hardly. If you want to wake the sleeping giant, watch what happens when Mitch McConnell (or Lieberman himself) starts reading from the phone book as a stalling tactic. The opponents of Health Care reform are obstructing. For God's sake make them OWN IT.

Threaten to do Health Care in reconciliation. I have no clue if Senate rules even permit something like this to be considered though Reconciliation. But fuck it: Threaten to do it anyway. As long as we are buying into the idea that we need 60 votes, then Lieberman has all the power. But if we say we're going to do it with 51 instead, Lieberman becomes a nobody. (And so does Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and all the other Dems who have been holding this thing up.) If we threaten to do it through reconciliation, then the argument becomes "You can't to it" vs. "Oh, yes we can." As long as we can make the "Oh, yes we can" argument then we can make the threat. And if Lieberman believes there is a tiny chance that we might actually be able to do it through Reconciliation, then he has an incentive to deal. Because if we only need 51, the bill is going to be much worse (in his eyes) than what is being considered now.

I'm sure there are some other things that can be done. Taking away his chairmanship or kicking him out of the caucus are two possibilities, but I'm not sure they hold much weight. The bottom line is that Obama and Reid and the other Health Care reform supporters need to do something to change the dynamic here. If we don't, the only option we have is to let Joe Lieberman dictate the terms.

Oh, and no matter what happens, fuck that guy.

[Unvanguard]

1. Threatening the "nuclear option" should be on the table too.

I, for one, would not mourn the passing of the filibuster.

[paulk]

5. this would be a step in the right direction

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/dec/14/senate-filibuster-healthcare-lieberman

[bc3000]

136. but wouldn't that need 60 votes too?

It doesn't seem like the Senators reveling in their power to filibuster health care would vote for something that would take that power away. How would this pass? Am I missing something?

[paulk]

142. yes, but its worth a try, IMO

getting rid of the filibuster altogether is not going to happen for the reason you state - but maybe something that keeps the filibuster but weakens it would appeal to enough Senators to pass. At the very least a vote on this would put them on record.

[sofa king]

I don't like monkeying with the filibuster.

It should have stayed a two-thirds vote for cloture (67 votes). That filibuster saved our ass. We wouldn't have any social security, and at least one more war than we do now, were it not for hundreds of hours' worth of delay by Senate Democrats.

Yes, the Republicans are wrong to oppose this bill, and because of their nature they'll be falling on the wrong side of any reform as long as their kind of people exist. But when you hand 'em the car keys, you'd better by god have a brake pedal on the passenger side, otherwise a crash (like the one we've been experiencing since 2001) is inevitable.

Civil Rights Reform was unquestionably the most difficult legislation ever passed. It was filibustered (a real filibuster, with a 67-vote cloture) by Senate conservatives for almost 60 days. It also killed off the Dixiecrat movement, made an honest man out of Senator Byrd, and forced the worst humans in the Senate to jump the aisle to where they are now, and the worse side of human nature has held a majority in the Senate far, far less often than the Democrats have.

[Skinner]

40. I think that's a very intriguing idea.

And I think it could be a credible threat.

I also would not mourn the passing of the filibuster.

[moondust]

116. Senate fillibuster rules are the problem.

And will always be the problem for any party that does not act in lockstep. As long as the Democratic Party accepts and encourages independent thinking and diversity of opinion, aka "freedom," it will be at a disadvantage in the U.S. Senate.

Of course the answer is not to start discouraging freedom but to change the Senate fillibuster rules.

[fasttense]

182. Progressives Must Remove the Mandate!!

With the mandate and without a public option this legislation is a piece of crap waiting to dump on the American people AND the Democratic Party.

With the mandate this legislation is worse than nothing. It forces people to buy into crappy plans just to stay out of jail or keep from being fined. Every time a health insurance CEO gives themselves another raise, the Democratic party will be blamed, just like people are blaming Obama for the bankster's bonuses. Every time someone gets a premium increase they will blame the Democratic party. Every time a corporation tells your doctor you don't need that service, you will blame the democratic party for forcing you to buy crappy, useless insurance.

Remove the mandate and if later down the road people are abusing the insurance corporations they could put it back in, or put in a trigger for the mandate.

Pass the few reforms in this bill without a mandate then also do reconciliation.

[emulatorloo]

2. Ron Wyden was saying reconciliation would not allow for insurance regulation etc

as it only deals with Federal Budget issues. So all the limits on the insurance companies would go away.

There is a diary at KOS that suggests passing the bill, then doing the medicare buy-in etc with reconciliation.

Interesting idea: "HCR is solved! Pass the Reform Bill Now-Reconcile a Medicare 'Buy-In' in January"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x57970

[Unvanguard]

4. But would Lieberman cooperate with that? You'd still have to pass the bill in some form.

And if he thought the Democrats were just waiting to do it later, he might well filibuster.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Would only need 51 votes to pass under budget reconciliation, from what I understand.

[Unvanguard]

22. Yes, the reconciliation part, but I mean the rest of the bill.

Assuming, per the post I was replying to, that the regulatory aspects couldn't be done through reconciliation.

[TwilightGardener]

29. I suppose if Lieberman thought someone was planning to do an end-run

around him to offer the public-option stuff separately, he might go ahead and obstruct the main bill just to be a dick--but I don't know that it's even being considered, so it's hard to say right now what might happen.

[andym]

176. And we won't know until it's sprung, but there's one thing we can do

LOBBY for IT.

[andym]

175. It would have to be a secret plan

otherwise he would kill it dead.
I thought the same thing btw
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x58864

[TwilightGardener]

15. That's what I think they should do, too.

[NightWatcher]

3. IS a watered down or bad bill better than no bill at all?

I'm scared of mandates and codifying rules that insurance companies will use to railroad us for years to come.

I'd almost rather forget the whole damn thing for several years instead of giving the insurance companies a gift.

Sure, I dont know ALL the details of whatever bill might pass, but we've seen "hiccups" such as the annual benefit cap "loophole" and other small print items that might bite us on the collective ass.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Thoughtful analysis not withstanding, let's focus on the Professional Wrestling Heel...

that is Joe Lieberman. :sarcasm:

[Raster]

6. Dude! Call Lieberman's bluff: you wanna filibuster, GO AHEAD!

It'll be on national television, and not just C-SPAN, and just maybe, might add more balance to the health care debate. Anything helps.
:kick:

[chimpymustgo]

Agree. Call their BLUFF. Plus, the President wants this bill badly enough that he might

actually put some foot in some people's asses to get it. The Progressives have given and given.

[closeupready]

7. I agree that the way forward is to make them filibuster.

n/t

[optimator]

8. all theater.

getting dems emotional about lieberman is what they want, and it appears to be working.

[Junkdrawer]

11. Bingo. n/t

[Individualist]

91. Agree

It's standard MO for DLC.

[Gold Metal Flake]

9. The leverage of SP proponents is in the streets and in the primaries.

Without a large presence in either category we will have little representation. We either move the party to the left by our votes or by force of intimidation. Otherwise, those in the emply of the corporations will continue their legislative theater.

Election finance reform is required to move the congressional focus from the corporate dollar to the public dollar. In the primaries is where that battle starts. It will be generational. Progressives don't have the common goal in mind, so we are, at this point, fucked. But that need not be a permanent condition.

[derby378]

12. Lieberman isn't even a Democrat anymore - why should he get to decide?

Last I heard, it was Democrats who maintained a majority in the House and Senate.

Aren't there a couple of Republicans who could accept a strong public option in exchange for some farm subsidies or something?

I hear you, but Lieberman is pulling something close to a liberum veto, which may have worked for Poland back during its days as a monarchy, but it's not helping out America that much.

[Skinner]

18. Because he is vote number 60.

That is why he gets to decide.

I'm not saying it's right. But it's reality.

[derby378]

26. My point is that Lieberman doesn't have to be 60

I'm sure there has got to be a way that at least one Republican can be talked into a strong PO in exchange for some subsidy package that Dems can live with.

If so, then Lieberman is irrelevant. And so is Olympia Snowe.

[Skinner]

31. And that one Republican is...

...who?

If you're taking Lieberman and Snowe out of the mix, there ain't many Republicans left who would be willing to deal. Susan Collins maybe?

[derby378]

54. Admittedly, that's a good question

I know we're in a sticky wicket right now. It's just immensely frustrating.

[closeupready]

30. Anyone could be vote #60. Doesn't have to be Lieberman.

n/t

[johnlal]

46. That is absolutely true.

Lieberman has shown that he will not support reform, no matter what. Why waste time with him? Why not look for cracks elsewhere in the Senate?

[TwilightGardener]

48. Repub Senators won't crack, because if they do, they're gone. They know that.

I thought Lugar might be reasonable since he's 113 years old and was friendly to Obama, but he hasn't been any more supportive on HCR than any other GOPer.

[closeupready]

50. Exactly. If we can have real reform, but we need a trigger,

let's give Snowe a trigger, but make sure it's a trigger with the lowest possible threshold.

That way, she gets to say she helped her constituents, and that she did it in a fiscally responsible way. And in a year or two, we get real reform.

[TwilightGardener]

56. I think Lieberman takes away Snowe's (and all Repubs') cover to vote

for anything having to do with a public option, triggered or not.

[blondeatlast]

197. No RRRepublocan is going to crack. The RNC threatens them with withholding

campaign money and campaign organizers if they don't toe the line--and they carry through.

No R will see the light--they don't dare. Buncha cowards, buit that's how it is.

[Hawkeye-X]

148. No he's not. He's not a Democrat. He's a Independent Monarch

He calls himself an Independent Democrat, but that's a misnomer. He's what he is - a fucking king that everyone falls over themselves to kiss his ass.

He's not vote #60. We can just pull out a weasel from the Republican side and use a cattle prod to make him vote AYE.

Personally, I think Mr. Lieberman needs to meet the butt end of a very strong cattle prod. Repeatedly.

[backscatter712]

121. Lieberman isn't even a human being anymore. n/t

[defendandprotect]

152. Because the Wizard of Oz has made him more powerful than the president -- !!!

Meanwhile, this corporate-give-away bill isn't worth passing --

It's dangerous and puts corporations in full charge of our health care --

How dumb are we?

[debbierlus]

13. The crux of the problem is the democrats are bought and paid for corporate shills

And, cowards to boot.

Not because they are afraid of the Republicans or Lieberman, but because they use him as their scapegoat for their wholesale sellout to the insurance industry. Feigned helplessness.

The dems never even BEGAN to fight for health reform. This legislation was written with the IMPERATIVE of maintaining the profits of the for profit health industry. Industry profit ABOVE all else.

The democrats COULD do a hundred things other then acquiescing to their corporate lords.

Other then Sanders initiating a filibuster of his own (the only dem who MAYBE, big maybe) MIGHT stand up and fight back against this...Or, the progressive caucus unifies and scuttles the bill. I don't hold out much hope for either, but I am going to call and pressure Sanders to act and I am going to call the chair of the Progressive Caucus and tell him to unify our reps and block the passage of this atrocity. Sen Harkin was on Rachel last night and he seemed utterly defeated and scoffed off the use of reconciliation. I don't see that happening.

Ultimately, this exposure of the one party system through this monumental betrayal may be a healthy dose of medicine for this country. This pretend game of two party rule while the corporations dictate all rules must end sometime. I have said it from the beginning. The democrats betray the people on health care, the dems break the democratic party in two.

You can see it on this board.

[dionysus]

16. actually, i have yet to see it outside of message boards populated by political junkies.

as much as you want the dems to fail as payback for whatever, it isn't like that outside of places like here...

[debbierlus]

122. You think I want the dems to fail? That is BS

I would love the dems to represent the people. I don't want payback. I want representation!

[peace frog]

198. Exactamundo

Too many of our elected congresscritters represent the business interests who fill their coffers and promote their campaigns, period.
Constituents, who are they? Oh yeh right, the idiots (that's what we are to them) who continue to vote the cowards into office.

[Junkdrawer]

24. And what little crumbs we get in the way of bans on rescissions, preexisting conditions...

and lifetime caps was put in there as a compromise with the hospital industry, tired of rendering services only to have the insurance pulled.

And since the insurance industry is more closely connected to Wall Street, look for those protections to be increasingly weakened as time goes by (after all, what the hospital industry wants most is to know BEFORE services are rendered if the bill will be paid).

[defendandprotect]

153. The one-party system was exposed 40 years ago . . . the message is trickling down???

What we need is to stop doing what what we've been doing and face this

ugly news -- head on !!!

:)

[theFrankFactor]

178. I Want So Much For The Liberals to See What You and I See debbierlus

It's so clear now.

[dionysus]

14. thank you Skinner

:thumbsup:

[NYC_SKP]

65. .

Nice to hear from Skinner, isn't it?

I mean, imagine, putting the onus on Congress and not the President!!!

:thumbsup:

[kenny blankenship]

19. They had all the leverage they needed: a super majority of public opinion in favor of Public Option

they even had majority support for Single Payer.

But the shepherds of the Health Care Rickroll had something else in mind: co-opting zeal for reform and turning the moment of reform into an industry protecting sweetheart deal. Indeed, they are creating a govt. enforced cartel against the interests of the citizens.

There are a few genuine supporters of health care reform in the Congress. But the party leadership is corrupt to the core.

You'll get real health care reform in this country when these crooks are all gone --or the ones who're left become suddenly very afraid of the health implications of defrauding you once again over this issue.

[Skinner]

25. You may be right..

But how does that get you to 60 votes in the United States Senate?

This is the Congress we have. If we want to reform health care, we have to figure out a way to get it through them.

[kenny blankenship]

28. Public opinion must be mobilized by leaders who're unafraid

[Skinner]

36. How's that working out so far?

The vast majority of Americans can't be bothered to figure out all this health care mumbo-jumbo. They just want it fixed, but they are easily frightened by BS scare tactics from opponents.

[kenny blankenship]

90. They don't HAVE a leader on their side. They're easily frustrated by complicated negotiations-yes.

And yes, they're easily turned off - especially when it appears that their side lacks courage and convictions. And that inconstancy is SO predictable that it must be provided for in one's planning. The people require a leader to mirror their concerns even as he/she shapes their thinking; they have to see him standing up for them. By that criterion, Obama has been a horrible leader. He has zero commitment to his own plan and he isn't leading on public opinion. You can't mobilize people and keep them moving together toward big changes without constant leadership. You can't hand it off and go work quietly on something else (like your grand war strategy for Central Asia for example). They'll wander off for a thousand different reasons: boredom, fear, inattention, despair, etc.. Strictly speaking, Obama doesn't have any plan now except to sign whatever ends up being called Health Care Reform. He hasn't acted like he has a plan, or any bottomline that the plan must meet, since HCR bills were first introduced in Congress. I'm sure he DOES have a bottomline, which he tries to uphold through allies in Congress, but unless you are seen upholding that in public, the public does not believe that you have one. And their perception becomes the reality. The less certain the people are of the leader, the more certain his opponents grow, and the weaker his bottomline becomes. Since the Leader doesn't have a Plan, who can lead the people to overcome the chicanery of obstructionists in the Senate? The answer is Nobody. Nobody else can have that stature. So of course the people wander off. But Obama once pretended to have a plan that was in line with what people were convinced they needed. Did the people lose interest first or was it rather the President who gave up? Obama should right now be echoing and expressing the frustration of the people and focusing it on the Senate's obstructionists like a flamethrower. He hasn't done any of that. He's been talking with his Generals. And as I've said elsewhere, it's way too late for him to take the road of a popular leader, which in any case, doesn't agree with his personality.

Oh I know, he doesn't wish to be seen as a demagogue, but I'm sorry, THAT'S what it takes to overcome the organized resistance of wealth to democracy. FDR was a demagogue. He led the little people against the protectors of the privileged. The only things about this country's political history that is worth ONE DAMN in my opinion, came from his awful "demagoguery". The eras of Jackson and Lincoln produced great changes that are correctly hailed as important expansions of freedom, but by the 20th century there was no visible dent in the tyranny of wealth. When that tyranny had the people and their leader up against the wall, the people and their President came together in a common cause and transformed society from "the way it's always been", to a way dedicated to the lot of the common man. There was much entrenched opposition in the usual places - but it was bulldozed by a public opinion mobilized by the President.

If the enemy succeeds in blocking a change to the basic shape of the insurance rackets - and it looks now like they've got that in the bag - it will be because, in addition to spreading a lot of political donations (bribery) around, they are UNAFRAID of mobilizing the passions and fears of the people to advance their agenda. They are committed to THEIR plan like their lives depend on it. Mobilizing public passions is not a second thought with them which they resort to only when reason fails. They go to it straightaway because they know who strikes first, strikes hardest. We will win against them only when we "stoop to their level" --and stoop to it immediately, passionately and without second thoughts. It cannot be that passion is lacking among the people: their lives ARE at stake. They don't need anyone to tell them that fact. They need someone to CARE about that fact - someone who is willing to risk failure to WIN. Our nice "gentlemen" Democrats simply don't have what it takes to win, mainly because they're not fighting for themselves but only doling a modicum of charity as it were to the less fortunate. That is why I say you will not see real change until they are changed - either replaced, or made to fear the consequences if they stand in the way of change.

[Beetwasher]

104. Sorry, This "We Don't Have A Leader!!!" Is Just So Much Crap

Jesus Christ himself could be spearpointing the debate in favor of HCR and the corporate media would turn him into a weak-kneed, indecisive, lilly livered, tax and spend liberal who hangs out w/ whores and lepers and can't be trusted.

And you goddman well know that's true. There's not a "leader" alive (or yet born) who wouldn't be smeared to near oblivion by the corporate media and their Repub allies.

And so many on this board are just too damn happy to help spread the meme of the day that the corporate media is pushing about Dems in dissaray and lack of leadership.

[kenny blankenship]

113. I'm waiting for you to append his latest speech in support of the Public Option

you know the one where he lays into the Lieberman / Nelson / Republican obstructionists ??

The date and the full text, if you please. If we have a leader, this should be from the past week or so. And there'd be one very much like it from the week before that. Shouldn't be hard at all to find.

Oh but he can't because the meanies in the media wouldn't let him - is that what you're saying?
That's pathetic and doesn't even merit this much response.

[druidity33]

184. Rep Grayson? nt.

[Beetwasher]

214. Oh, Yeah, A Speech!! That Would Show Lieberman!

What's pathetic is that you think that that would make any difference.

[rpannier]

181. Please feel free to provide examples of where the WH or Senate has provided leadership on this issue

The White House turned the whole operation over to the Senate and HoR.
They have said little publicly about what they want.
There has been no visible sign of leadership from the White House

As to the Senate all they do is whine "We don't have 60 votes."
Then when they claim to have something like the public option or allowing people to join Medicaid at 55, they turn around and say they don't anymore.
According to sources within the Senate the White House is cajoled Senators into letting Lieberman have his way.

Truman or LBJ Obama is not.
He has shown little ability (publicly) to be leading this.

Like it or not Reagan was correct when he said, "Weakness is not a problem politically. The impression that you are weak is."

Obama is President. He has the most powerful platform in the world to make his positions known.
He needs to use it.

[Beetwasher]

215. "He needs to use it." I Ask Again, HOW????

What the fuck should he do to Lieberman, smart guy? What should he do to force Lieberman to vote the way he wants him to? Should he threaten his life? Kidnap his family? What?

[defendandprotect]

154. You don't get it by putting Baucus/neck deep in "for profit" health care money in charge ..

of health care talks--

Would the Repugs have let someone like Lieberman control their party?

Our problem isn't the number of Democrats, our problem is that Democrats are

servicing corporate interests and not the people's interests.

[closeupready]

33. "Health Care Rickroll" = LOL

Perfectly apt characterization. :rofl:

[chimpymustgo]

62. Thas been my "hair on fire" argument. They had all the tools in the toolbox, and chose to dump them

Why, you couldn't have PLANNED a bull-shit outcome any better. Progressives have compromised from Day 1. Single payer - off the table. Day after day, EVERY COST-CUTTING PROTECTION - off the table.

It cost a lot of money and energy, but this is finally where the PTB want it to be: a giveaway to the corporations that will continue to screw the people.

President Obama, Democrats, and Republicans! You WON!

[defendandprotect]

156. Nothing new here . .. when GOP in charge, Democrats cower and serve them . . .

when Dems in charge, they give their power away to GOP -- and Wizards of Oz like Lieberman.

What would the GOP have done with a "Lieberman" -- let him run their party??

This is all so fake as to be laughable if so many ill and suffering weren't going to die!!

As we've known for 40 years, the problem isn't too few Democrats, it's too much corporate

money in the game -- crippling a people's government!

We need a Plan B --

[treestar]

70. A majority of the total might not reflect the majority of representatives

If that majority is made of heavily of people from California and New York, say, that won't affect the Senate. The population of Montana has equal say with the population of New York.

We'd need a breakdown by state and district for that.

We're not a democracy but a republic and a federation of states each having equal power besides.

[theFrankFactor]

177. You've Got it!

[kentuck]

20. I am under the impression that under reconciliation...

a lot of the provisions now in the bill cannot be added in a reconciliation bill? Is that not correct? But I agree it should be used as leverage.

No doubt, all the Senators want to go home for Christmas. Threaten to keep them there over the Christmas holiday and vacation. I bet they will come up with a solution? Maybe even get a couple of Republicans?

Make them filibuster? That may do the trick.

[Skinner]

37. The argument I am making with regard to reconciliation,

is to go ahead and threaten to do it anyway. Even if it's *technically* not doable, try to shoehorn it all in anyway.

Of course, I do not know how credible such a threat would be. I am no expert in Senate rules.

[kentuck]

45. I agree it should be on the table.

A good poker player would make the Republicans think they are going to do, whether they do or not. After all, the Republicans did it with the trillion dollar tax cut of George W Bush.

[laughingliberal]

47. dupe. sorry

nt

[laughingliberal]

51. Reconciliation can be done for budget items. Here's what I think could be done:

The main talking points against reconciliation have been that the industry reforms would not apply. I think it can be argued that industry reforms do, at least indirectly, affect the budget (more on this in a moment).

A public option and the taxes needed to fund it could be done easily. The subsidies for lower income people to purchase coverage could be there with the provisions to raise the revenue to pay for them. Medicaid expansion and the revenue to cover it could remain.

Now, as for the reforms of the industry, it is not a stretch to me that policies like the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions and recission would affect the budget IF we have a strong public option included. If the public option is available to those who can not obtain coverage through private industry that does put the government on the hook for the people the industry rejects and increases costs to the government by putting all the sick into it. Forcing reforms which prevent denials for preexisting conditions or recissions decreases the costs to the government IF we have the public option. Strict medical loss ratios can be tied to the budget in this way: it forces some price controls on the industry as they will be required to spend a minimum amount of their revenue from premiums for claims. This would, to some extent, be incentive to keep premiums under control. If the government is subsidizing people under 400% of FPL the premium the insurance companies charge affect the budget.

I don't expect to see them do this but I think a case can be made that a lot of the industry reforms will affect the budget.

[laughingliberal]

64. I'm omitting the last line of this & emailing it to Harry Reid. Likely another example of me pissing

in the wind. But, what is there to lose at this point?

[NJmaverick]

21. I agree Skinner, the situation really sucks

I am not sure a filibuster would work though. FOX, Rush, Tea Baggers and company would be out their hailing the Republicans as heroes, so I am not sure their obstructionist actions would harm them all that much.

I like your second idea, but like you I don't know if it's possible. If it's not possible I doubt Liberman (who you pointed out has a brain) will fall for it.

[iceman66]

23. They should have made them fillibuster back in August.

[madfloridian]

27. The moment the Democrats supported Joe against Ned...

he got the power.

And since then the party has blamed the people who supported Lamont and hurt Joe's feelings...people like me.

There was a post here recently about how harmful it was to run someone against an incumbent.

That thinking is why we don't have good health care reform.

[bigtree]

32. gotta watch the results of this White House meeting with Dems today

. . . and take a look at your options alongside whatever course they decide to take.

[FourScore]

34. This is an excellent post.

I would imagine your suggestions (for some reason) are not do-able. Otherwise, I think Reid and Obama would be doing them. But I think that is the crux of the anger that so many progressives are feeling and expressing. The leadership seems weak. If it's not weak, then they need to make that more obvious to those of us in the Everyday World. They need to explain it to us better.

Also, I still blame many of the Dems for throwing their weight behind their ol' pal Lieberman instead of Lamont during the election. Even some of my favorite Senators such as Boxer supported this guy. I just don't get it. They made this bed and now we have to lie in it. Personally, I'm pissed about that.

[johnlal]

35. Nuclear Option!

Threatening "Nuclear Option" was enough to get Democrats to allow an "up or down vote" on dangerously radical judge nominations. Now that the "Gang of 14" has disbanded, there is no longer any compromise or agreement that would preclude what Trent Lott called "The Nuclear Option". Is healthcare reform more important than the nomination of a few judges? You bet! Then why do the nominations require an immediate "up or down vote", but Healthcare reform gets bogged down in procedural delays and obstruction?

(On Edit): The foregoing is assuming, of course, that Harry Reid can put together 51 Senators who will support substantial Health Care Reform. On retrospect, our recent experiences with Lucy and the football suggests that this may be overly optimistic.

[graywarrior]

38. Doesn't reconciliation take longer, like up to five years to get it all passed?

Seems I heard someone say that on Rachel's show yesterday.

[laughingliberal]

55. I haven't heard that. It is true that bills passed under reconciliation can only be passed

for 10 year periods. That's why Bush's tax cuts will expire without further action in 2010. They were passed under reconciliation.

[graywarrior]

103. Ah, thank you!

[MadHound]

39. There has been failure written all over this abomination from the very beginning

It was a huge mistake to let this go past the August recess. By allowing it to do so the Dems gave the 'Pugs a chance to whip their minions into a frothing frenzy and gain traction.

It's been a huge mistake to play this "bipartisan" game, sacrificing key parts in order to get one or two 'Pugs on board, especially when you didn't need them.

It's been a huge failure of leadership, both in Congress and the White House. This has allowed key provisions, such as the public option, to be dispensed with.

Frankly, at this point they need to kill this bill and start all over again. The only provision that I see that is worth a damn thing will be the ban on turning people away for pre-existing conditions. This can be addressed next year. But as it stands now, this bill will give the insurance industry a mandated monopoly with absolutely no recourse for people to turn to when they start jacking the rates up and up. This is another assault on the poor and middle class and we will suffer horribly for it. Kill the damn thing now so that this FUBAR doesn't come about.

There is plenty of blame to spread around. Congressional Dems for once again proving that they have no spine, Obama for exhibiting too little leadership too late in the game, Lieberman for being, well, Lieberman (once again we trusted him, once again he let us down, you know what they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me).

But in the final analysis, this bill isn't going to be an improvement on what we've got. It is going to be the launching point for another assault on the poor and middle class, accompanied by another massive transfer of wealth up the ladder. Kill this bill and start all over again.

[TwilightGardener]

44. Actually, I think letting it go past August was a good thing--public opposition

was highest then, that was the summer of death panels and bogus Astroturf town-hall protests. It's since died down, to what I read as either public disinterest in the process, or resignation. And killing the bill is pointless--who knows if we'll get anything better later? Plus, the reforms, if passed, won't even take full effect for several years from NOW, so how long will people have to wait if we scrap this whole thing?

[MadHound]

59. Letting go past August was a huge mistake

We had a much stronger bill going into the August break, on the right hadn't whipped the Teabaggers into a frothing frenzy yet. We let the Congress go home to these hordes of astroturf screamers going on about death panels and such, with a side helping of implied violence, and Congress members started backing down. This dithering on the part of Democrats gave heart to our opponents, allowed them to organize even more effectively, and water this bill down to nothing. Now they're talking about going past the Christmas break, lovely. The only good thing about that is it will finally put the final nail in the coffin and this travesty of reform will be dead.

We certainly can't get any worse of a bill later. What is this bill doing? The only thing of significance is that it is eliminating lifetime caps, and the ability of insurance companies to turn people away because they are high risk or have a pre-existing condition. These things can be dealt with in a separate bill, and should be. But this bill is essentially giving the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, and you know what that means, rates are going to shoot through the roof for everybody, everywhere, no matter what their health is like. Sorry, but I can't go in for that kind of assault on the middle class and the poor. Killing the bill is the best thing to do, at least that way we still have the ability to opt out on the table keeping prices in check, somewhat.

I don't know when we'll have the chance to come back to this, but I do know that acting in haste, acting out of that fear of "when can we do this again" is going to lead us right down the path of destruction. I would rather have people wait than feed us all to the lions.

[TwilightGardener]

79. I disagree with the perception that the bill was stronger in August--

the strength of the bill isn't known until the vote (crunch time). The House version that passed was the strongest we were going to get, and everyone expected that it would get compromised in the Senate, it was just a matter of how much it got watered down. I am still wondering what happened to the recent idea (came up at the same time as the Medicare buy-in) of allowing people to buy into a privately-run but non-profit plan in the exchange (through the OPM?) of the sort that federal employees use--haven't heard much about that this week.

[LibDemAlways]

129. The unintended consequences of passing a POS bill mandating that

people fork over their hard earned dollars to insurance company predators will be Republican victories at the ballot box next year. This fiasco will be seen, and rightly so, as a Democratic Party fuck up.

[EarlG]

41. There is another option

Get rid of the filibuster altogether, or change it.

The filibuster is not written into the Constitution, it's a made-up Senate rule last amended in 1975 when the number of votes needed for cloture was lowered from 67 votes to 60.

Tom Harkin is considering a bill to "significantly soften the power of the filibuster" right now, based on the one he first proposed back in 1995 when his co-sponsor was - irony of ironies - Joe Lieberman.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5979331.shtml

Of course, trying to change the filibuster rule creates its own set of political problems. But it is an option.

[NJmaverick]

49. Earl what happens if the GOP regains control of the Senate?

Then we run the risk of being powerless. I remember the Dems used the threat of filibuster to some good during the dark Bush years.

[EarlG]

58. Well yeah there is that

But what is preferable? A system where legislators write and pass laws broadly in line with the will of the people that elected them, or the gridlock we have now where one senator from a tiny state can screw everything up for everyone else?

FWIW, I don't know if the Democrats actually had much success with the filibuster (thanks once again to Joe Lieberman and his Gang Of 14) while Republicans were in power.

Here's an interesting graphic demonstrating the use of the filibuster since 1959:



As you can see, once the Dems got back into power the Republicans (who had constantly complained about the Democrats' very average use of the filibuster when they were in the minority) suddenly went nuts.

Perhaps the biggest problem with ending the filibuster would be the fact that it could no longer be used against radical Supreme Court appointments.

[laughingliberal]

61. Yes, in the end, the Dems wound up caving to avoid the nuclear option

And, even with filibuster power, the RW still got a couple of doozies appointed to the court. I just know this business of, in essence, anointing one cantankerous malcontent with dictatorial power can not continue. And he can do this to every piece of legislation he does not like for 2 more years if this stands.

[NJmaverick]

63. Those are some good points, maybe this is something that should be done

although to minimize the political cost of such a bill, it couldn't be tied to one issue. Rather I think the Dems would have to present the GOP's resume of obstruction and then push for the change independent of any particular bill or measure.

[laughingliberal]

69. If nothing is done about the filibuster we are, essentially, living under the dictatorship of Joe

Lieberman. No legislation will pass for 2 years which does not meet with Joe's approval. In fact, any Democratic senator may now step up and play dictator for a day. We are being held hostage by this.

[NJmaverick]

71. The other option is to offer up Joe's charmanship to someone like Olympia Snow

if she was willing to join the Dems.

[Hippo_Tron]

Olympia Snowe is too safe to switch parties

For some reason Maine keeps electing two Republicans with overwhelming majorities. If their seats were in jeopardy they would more heavily consider joining the majority party in their state.

[NJmaverick]

82. Well being with the majority and being a chairman offers many political rewards

the switch would allow her to better serve her state. I could imagine the current state of GOP politics would certainly give her more than enough coverage and I have to think the Dems big tent would be a better fit than being mostly out of the GOP's tiny tent.

[laughingliberal]

92. I don't see her doing it. And Joe still has a vote even without a chairmanship

My suspicion is Lieberman is setting the stage to jump parties and make a run for the White House as a Republican. His obstructionism of Democratic legislation is, in his mind, endearing him to them.

[The Revolution]

72. Supreme Court appointments

I suppose in theory we could lower the votes required for cloture to 50 for standard bills, but leave it at 60 for Supreme Court (and possibly other) nominations. Heck, you could maybe even raise it back to 67 for those cases (not sure if that would be good or not though).

[TexasObserver]

75. They'll say they'll use the nuclear option and ignore Dems threat of filibuster.

That's what they did in those dark Bush years you allegedly remember. I don't know when you think the threat of filibuster by Dems worked in the Bush years.

[kenny blankenship]

108. Then people will get the govt they voted for. If they vote stupidly they will suffer for it

just like in any parliamentary system where a bare majority carries any issue.

By the way, have you ever seen a country with a parliamentary system of democracy ditch their way for ours?

After many years of voting stupidly for Republicans, the electorate had finally assembled a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President to oversee it all. The Republican party leadership passed virtually everything it wanted for several years in a row. The disaster of fully implemented Republican ideology was so intense that the voters ditched the Republican control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency within a 2 year span. They put Democrats in charge, fully, just as the Republicans were in charge before. But although the people have led their donkey to the water, the only water to be had for many miles, they cannot make the stubborn ass drink.

When the people suffer from their mistakes, they learn. What other chance is there? To treat them otherwise --to perpetually shield the people from the consequences of their choices-- and to reserve permanent veto power for the minority party, is to treat the people as little children that can never grow up. That is how elites govern countries "on behalf of" the populace. Rarely, if ever, has that actually worked out in favor of the interests of the ordinary people. Instead it just works out for the interests of elites.

[defendandprotect]

157. Good post . . .

[defendandprotect]

161. As long as the only threat to the Democratic Party is from a near fascist GOP . . .

then the Democratic Party will continue to be pulled to the right --

This is about corporatism/fascism as Jane Hamsher is pointing out quite clearly!

That is, our people's government is passing totally out of our hands and into the

hands of corporations!!!

The reason is corporate money which has been buying government and buying our

legislators -- of BOTH parties -- for more than 40 years!!!

To pass this bill would be to put corporations firmly in charge of our health care --

rather than having them outside looking in.

Meanwhile, only 20% of Americans now identify as Repugs ---

And I doubt that the GOP ever sat around wondering what to do about someone like

Lieberman running their party!!!

[Pithlet]

174. I agree with this.

The filibuster should go. This health care reform debacle is a good example of how it messes with democracy.

[dgibby]

42. Skinner, I don't disagree with either of your suggestions,

but re: filibuster: President Obama wants health care passed before Christmas, so that's out. He's called all 60 Senators to the White House today for a "come to Jeebus meeting".

As for reconcilation, my understanding is that it would require re-working the entire bill (not a bad thing imo), again not something that would fit in the President's timeline.

[Skinner]

43. Then President Obama needs to be flexible on the Christmas deadline.

Or better yet, he can continue to say he wants this thing finished by Christmas, while bashing Health Care opponents for filibustering. It's a win-win.

[laughingliberal]

60. Agree. Would love to see him bash on the obstructionists in our party but have yet to see it nt

[tandot]

52. They should have taken his chairmanship away and kicked him out of the caucus

when he decided to back McCain.

I totally agree with your post.

[Cleita]

67. Yep, and there is a reason that didn't and hasn't happened. Many of

the Democratic power brokers in Congress are in on this scam. They don't want real health care reform, just some window dressing to make us peasants shut up and put down our pitchforks.

[defendandprotect]

162. Right . . . like the GOP would sit around wondering what they should do about a Lieberman--!!!

Oh -- "let's let him keep his Chairmanship" --

or, "let's give him even more power to wag our party around????"

Don't think so!!!

:evilgrin:

[Lilith Velkor]

53. "even though we don't want to believe it"? Really, Skinner?

Under the current system, I am uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions.

Under the proposed one, I am insurable, but have to pay for insurance which may or may not cover me if I actually have to use it, at rates I can't afford, or pay a fine, which I can't afford, either. I would automatically become a criminal, either for not having the money or for what I had to do to get the money.

How the fuck is that an improvement?

[woo me with science]

141. +1 nt

[NYC_SKP]

57. Thank you for reminding us that this needs a Congressional, not a Presidential, Solution.

We're seeing a lot of misplaced, IMHO, blame being cast toward the administration.

Both of your ideas involve Congressional actions, which is where this matter lays.

Oh, and yeah: "For God's sake make them OWN IT!"

:patriot:

[LoZoccolo]

66. Now I think I know why I haven't been tombstoned.

I almost always agree with you. :thumbsup:

[Skinner]

68. I've got bad news for you...

...agreeing with me doesn't protect people from being tombstoned.

[tekisui]

76. !

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

77. lol

I was kinda joking about that, but I still agree with your analysis because it's written from the standpoint of "how will this work" rather than "what do I feel like doing". A huge problem in "netroots" politics - or even grassroots - is that it's just to easy to keep yourself occupied with the latter and take no responsibility for the former. It doesn't have to, but it makes it very easy to pursue emotional gratification at the expense of participating in reality.

[Political Heretic]

100. No, but it helps.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. If reconciliation is only for fiscal things, then could there be a tax on high insurance premiums?

If you can't introduce a public option via a reconciliation bill, could you force insurance companies to limit their premiums via a tax that makes high premiums unprofitable for them?

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Making them filibuster won't work, but I agree on reconciliation

As I've said earlier the low cost of a fake filibuster vs an actual filibuster means that opponents will filibuster more often. However, this is such an important issue with so much at stake for both the majority and the opposition that the opponents will filibuster as long as it takes once they start. Sure we can hope that the narrative works in our favor, but lets face it, it usually doesn't. Too much of the MSM will talk about how the Republicans are heroically stopping evil government socialism.

Another thing I think we should do is take away Lieberman's chairmanship until he agrees to stop obstructing. If he resigns then I say good. When Jodi Rell appoints a Republican Senator from a state that voted 61-38 for the President you can bet your ass that said Republican is going to seriously considering supporting health care if they want to win in 2010 and that could be our 60th vote.

[Skinner]

78. Not sure about the filibuster.

Yes, opponents will talk as long as it takes. But I believe escalating the fight up a notch, by letting them actually make good on their filibuster threat, will put a lot of pressure on everyone, especially Senators on the fence (Lieberman, Snow, Collins to name a few). Would one of them be more likely to deal when they feel the heat?

[chimpymustgo]

80. This is worth FIGHTING for. Skinner, how many unrec's are you getting? C'mon. Tell.

[Skinner]

84. I don't think you can read much into the number of unrecs I get.

I suspect the fact that I am the administrator might unfairly influence the recs and unrecs I get.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. From the 'New and Hot' section of the Top Tens page: 129 'points', with 83 replies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

So total recs+unrecs= 129-83= 46

net recs then = +38

So:
R+U=46
R-U=38
R=42
U=4

Soon it'll be in the 'Just Recs' section, I expect, so we'll be able to track the total recs and unrecds there too.

[chimpymustgo]

93. Well done! Thanks. Not too shabby, considering...

[Hippo_Tron]

81. I think it just raises the costs of backing down

If they start actually taking to the floor with phone books then there is no turning back. They look weak if they do.

[Skinner]

83. A fair point.

But I think there might be a small group of mild-opponents who would not be comfortable going out there with phone books. Sure, most of the GOP would dive right in. But some borderline senators (I'm thinking Snowe and Collins) might wait to see how the filibuster plays back home. As long as any Senator does not show up on the floor to actively participate, then we'll know there is still a chance to peel them off.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. The problem, I think, is that Lieberman is a lame duck at this point

There's not a chance in hell he would be pulling this crap if he planned on running for re-election in 2012. That means we're essentially stuck with a guy who doesn't respond to normal political incentives and is mostly worried about his 7 figure lobbying job once he leaves.

And you have a good point about Snowe and Collins. Maine is a blue state and if we turn up the political heat, one of them may be persuaded to come to the table. But I wouldn't do this lightly. Once the phone books come out, the senate will be tied up until this congress ends or there are 60 votes on the measure. The Republican leadership will not cave in on this one because their only hope of winning in 2010 is obstructing everything the President does. This is a fight worth fighting and it's worth taking the rest of this congress if necessary but I would only do it if we are really convinced that the political heat will bring Snowe or Collins on board.

[Skinner]

89. I agree with most of this.

I suspect Lieberman would be a lost cause if it gets to an actual filibuster. But I'm not sure about his intentions for next term. If he can strike a deal with the Republicans to stay out of the race (or to run another pathetic loser like they did last time) then he has a shot.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Too much risk of being the right wing candidate

Lieberman can win so long as he is the centrist independent candidate he was last time. But remember that last time the only thing he had done was lose a Democratic Primary to a guy that he successfully portrayed as a tool of internet bloggers and fringe leftists. He successfully managed to convince a good chunk of Connecticut Democrats that he was still a Democrat while becoming the default candidate for the Republicans. But since that election he endorsed the Republican Party's nominee for President which means that all of those charges that people threw at him last time about being a Republican are starting to sound more and more true.

The Republicans will probably run token opposition against him anyway (although a token candidate that gets 10% is a good chunk of voters that won't go to Lieberman). But if he were serious about his re-election he would be far more worried about his left flank than his right one, so to speak. He's already got plenty of bipartisan credentials (he endorsed the other guy for President). If he were running for re-election he would be frantically trying to remind Connecticut voters that he still belongs to the majority party in Connecticut.

[CTyankee]

110. I cannot for the life of me see how Joe thinks all those Dems who voted for him in 06

would still be with him in 12. His opposition to the Medicare buy in for the 55-64 subset will just do him in with those people. Also, we have to remember that the 06 election was before he had campaigned for a Republican candidate for President!

There are a lot of pissed off people in CT right now and they sure as hell include those CT dems who voted for him wrongheadedly in 06, still believing that he was really a Dem...

[Name removed]

115. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quiet.american]

86. K&R nt

[EFerrari]

88. I wish they would make him own it but don't think they will.

The way this bill is shaping up is ugly but I want the Democrats to pass something.

And yeah, FUCK him. Somebody needs to figure out how to deal with him or this is going to happen over and over and over again.

[blueworld]

95. I'm worried - this is the first time I've ever disagreed with you!

I agree with your frustration, and the necessity of "leverage", however I vehemently disagree with your opinion that this diluted piece of used toilet tissue (a.k.a. "HCbill") is an improvement over the current system. Currently, if I'm uninsured I can be treated in "some" ER's, negotiate a "reduced rate" and take years to pay my debt (at the expense of my credit rating, true).

Under the Toilet Paper Reform Act of 2009, I MUST purchase insurance (even if I can't afford it) or be assessed a fine I can't afford at the expense of my credit rating (and probably my tax refunds - the IRS will grab the loot first).

There is NO control over insurance company premiums which are rising already & will continue to rise. There are NO controls over isolating groups of conditions & diseases into "preferred rate" exchanges, as opposed to "high rate pools". The Medicare buy-in for 55's sounds great, if we can afford it and only after all private options are exhausted. The tax on "cadillac plans" will force employers to continue to reduce benefits for years.

The irony is truly overwhelming to me that the bloviators of "free market" everything REFUSE to force competition for insurance companies via a public option! Without it, this bill will be like pernicious anemia.

And I think Lieberworst should be isolated, ostracized, humiliated, removed from any chair...I'm trying not to be profane or disgusting about the other things I think should happen to him. And frankly, Reid should be forced to wear a giant S for "sphincter".

[cry baby]

96. Thank you for giving those that want to hear ideas a no-name calling thread to do so.

We could pass an insurance reform bill (what is left of the HCR), then pass a medicare buy-in through reconciliation, since reconciliation is only for changes in existing programs. It could even be a medicare for all program. There needs to be incentives for healthier people to join the program to give medicare the financial stability it needs to provide for the ailing.

[mike_c]

97. you lost me in the first paragraph....

I have both a conscience and a brain, and I do NOT agree with you that the legislation being crafted in the Senate is an improvement over the current situation. It is a DISASTER that is far worse than the current situation because it will put health care delivery in America onto a much worse trajectory than it is on currently, as incredible as that seems.

Implying that folks who see things differently are brainless and lack conscience is not a particularly effective rhetorical approach, my friend.

[dionysus]

98. pot,kettle...

:eyes:

[mike_c]

102. excuse me, are you suggesting that I called Skinner brainless and conscienceless?

:wtf:

Did you even bother to read my comment before you tossed your non sequitur in?

[Skinner]

105. I'm going to step in here.

I don't think you called me that. And I think your post was fair. I did not intend to imply that people here on DU and elsewhere in the Liberal Blogosphere were brainless or conscienceless. I should have been more careful with my words, and I apologize.

I was trying to make a point about the choice(s) facing the members of the US Senate. Given what anyone can realistically expect to come out of the Senate now, or in the near future, I think the consequences of inaction are worse than the consequences of action (however imperfect).

[dionysus]

112. sorry Skinner, I clarified my post because i wasn't clear in what i was referring to.

[defendandprotect]

158. The consequences of this legislation is to cement corporatism into our health care!!!

[dionysus]

111. no. your last line;

"Implying that folks who see things differently are brainless and lack conscience is not a particularly effective rhetorical approach, my friend."

you've treated people you disagree with here as both before, especially on the war.

sorry if i wasn't clear.

[Political Heretic]

99. I think the "crux" of the problem is neither party answers to the poor and working class.

If ever an example was needed, there can be no greater example of how thoroughly both parties are dominated by the interests of the wealthy and financial elite than this year of health care "reform."

Work locally with loyalty to issues not parties, and stop believing that national politics is a) something in which you actually participate b) something that has anything to do with poor or working class Americans c) is anything other than a game played by the financial elite.

By the way, my biggest criticism of Obama is a very simple one. Because many things that have happened and are happening are not the fault of one individual alone, however there is one core criticism that is entirely Obama's to bear:

I criticize Obama for promising change that you (meaning I, we) can believe in and the end of "politics as usual" and then turning around and appointing all the old Wall Street, Corporatist, Washington insider players to every key position withing his administration. His staff reads like a who's who of establishment politics and wall street insider cronyism. That is entirely, 100%, his fault. It's the one place where the decisions he makes really are entirely his responsibility.

And its not just Geithner, Summers, Emmanuel: the list of people with massive, longstanding political ties to Wall Street and the financial elite is pages long, permeating virtually every area of the administration. There is nearly no one representing a "change" viewpoint when it comes to the business of money and power.

That I do blame Obama for. He betrayed the core of his campaign vision and betrayed the majority of the American people - regardless of whether he did so knowingly or did so ignorant of the effect stuffing his entire administration with neo-libral crony capitalists would have - before he was even inaugurated.

[defendandprotect]

163. Agree -- someone they seem to have the idea it's government of, by, for corporations???

And it's corporate money that's giving them that slant on life --

[MilesColtrane]

101. Step one.

Strip the Senator from Connecticut of his committee assignments.

As you said, it may do nothing, but it signals that we're not playing.

Then force the filibuster.

The problem we face is that In addition to one Senator, the White House would also have to get behind the nuclear option (since Biden would be pulling the trigger on the rule change).

Unfortunately Obama has shown very little stomach for confrontation.

[Hekate]

106. Bless you Skinner for weighing in. KnRnB.

[Political Heretic]

107. Skinner: the current reform is not an improvement over the current system

And anyone with a conscience and a brain knows this.

Hey you said it, so I feel free to say it back to you.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7063614

[Skinner]

109. Again, I apologize.

Here's what I wrote above:

I did not intend to imply that people here on DU and elsewhere in the Liberal Blogosphere were brainless or conscienceless. I should have been more careful with my words, and I apologize.

I was trying to make a point about the choice(s) facing the members of the US Senate. Given what anyone can realistically expect to come out of the Senate now, or in the near future, I think the consequences of inaction are worse than the consequences of action (however imperfect).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7231194&mesg_id=7232554

[Festivito]

114. My leverage is sensible 3-4K$ per capita covering everyone and everything, vs >6-7K$

Over 6K$ per capita being what we have now, not covering everyone, not covering everything. (1T$ is somehow better aside being less than the 2T$ we pay each year for the nearly completely broken system.)

This appeals to Democrats and Republicans alike. Even teabaggers. Even Joe Lieberman crossover Republicans. It would render the money he'd collect from grateful corporations inadequate for his re-election.

The people just don't believe the numbers because we don't push them (We DUers don't!) and certainly the media won't. We're not being socialists or communists in this fight, it makes fiscal sense. Other countries (plural) do it. But, how can Americans believe that these numbers are backward, that paying less gives more, unless it does get pounded into minds each day.

It's our leverage if we can just get it said over and over so people can test drive it and slowly drown their incredulity.

Change the filibuster? Sure. Make him answer questions over and over until we run out of questions and then he can read the phone book: How much more do you want us to pay in order to deny health care to Group A, then to deny Group B, ... because the first group denied is going to cost us an extra half-trillion a year to implement beyond the one-trillion that covers everyone, that ups it to 1.5T$. And, when Bernie Sanders filibusters the opposite, put boxing gloves on the both to finish it for all I care.

It won't change the real problem which is campaign funding. But this subject, just like Social Security, resonates loudly enough that people will listen to it more than they will listen to those silly commercials.

Sorry, I'll stop now.

[Major Hogwash]

117. Sure, we can use reconciliation because the healthcare bill affects the budget

But, they won't use it and it makes no sense.

48,000 Americans are dying each day due to them not having healthcare.
That's 132 a day.

More people die from a lack of healthcare in this country every day than serving in Iraq and Afghanistan combined!!!

[Odin2005]

118. The fillibuster needs to be shitcanned.

I defended it for a long time, no more. It's time for it to go.

[WI_DEM]

119. The filibuster is a disgrace. Southerners used it for 100 years after the Civil War to keep

segregation. It needs to GO!

[ebayfool]

120. Last year Baucus said it could go to reconciliation ...

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_sleeper_of_the_senate

snip/
Later in the conversation, I mention to Baucus that some health reformers believe that the only way Democrats will ever pass health reform is to wall the process off from minority obstruction -- in particular, from the filibuster. The way to do that would be to invoke the budget-reconciliation process, which allows legislation dealing primarily with the health of the federal coffers to be fast-tracked through 20 hours of debate and passed with a simple majority. The Clintons hoped to do this in 1994 but were blocked by Sen. Robert Byrd, the self-appointed guardian of the process. Bill Clinton has said that his gravest error in that battle was not recognizing what a blow he'd been dealt when he was denied access to reconciliation.

But there's fair evidence that Byrd couldn't stop reconciliation now. Moreover, Congress in the Bush years normalized the procedure, using it for everything from tax cuts to drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But reconciliation remains an aggressive tool for something as controversial as health-care reform. (It's also an uncertain one: Republican opponents could use the rule that bears Byrd's name to mount a parliamentary challenge.) So I ask Baucus whether he could imagine running health care through the budget-reconciliation process. "Yes, I can," he says without hesitation. "The goal here is to get results. And not just results for the sake of results but principled results. And that means working with the other side where you get principled results and means maybe going to reconciliation to get principled results."

[Skinner]

124. Great find.

I approve. :thumbsup:

[Bobbie Jo]

123. K&R

Thank you, Skinner. :kick:

[vssmith]

125. I think Lieberman needs to be made an example for

Senators who may want to play this game in the future. I say kick him out of the caucus and yank his chairmanship. Joe has his motives but I think he just likes to be the center of attention.

[Bucky]

130. Amen. We'd lose a lot of 59-41 filibuster cloture votes, but it's time to cut out the cancer.

We'll lose that 60 vote majority in November anyway. Take the hit now and at least start showing some balls.

[Enthusiast]

185. Yup, let's do it! nt

[NMDemDist2]

126. what i was wondering was... let the Senate do their thing, then it goes to conference

put all the good stuff back in from the House bill and the Senate only gets to vote it up or down so we only need 51 after it goes through conference.

or am I misunderstanding the rules?

[moondust]

128. I wonder about that, too.

[KoKo]

127. Thanks,Skinner...LET THEM GO AT IT...Fillibuster...stamp the ground with their cloven hooves

and let it rail on during Christmas Break, if need be. Why Not? It would "flush out" those we need to know who to target for 2010

[Sparkly]

131. I agree there are still more avenues for Congress to try, as you suggested.

I couldn't agree more about the filibuster and reconciliation. I also agree with Stinky's points about what Obama could do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7235528

So it may not be time to bail just yet, BUT if this is all it amounts to, I think it should either be scrapped OR the positive points (which I don't think can work without real reform, economically) could pass but NOT under the guise of "Reform" -- just a starting point.

Real reform still needs to happen. If Democrats want to claim victory, they need to score a real bill; otherwise, they need to say that it didn't get done.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

132. Ditching Snowe was the turning point towards disaster.

All she wanted was a trigger which she could hang her hat on, she even wanted more generous subsidies than many Dems in the Senate. Snowe's vote would have neutered Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson and Senate Democrats could have focused on strengthening the 90% of the bill that doesn't relate to the public option. Rahm was right and Reid was wrong, that's basically what it comes down to, and if the public option hadn't been given far more symbolic importance than it actually has in reality the bill coming out of the Senate would be much stronger than it currently is.

[mvd]

133. Interesting post, Skinner

I agree with it except for the part that inaction would be worse than anything that has been proposed by us. If it has a public option, even a limited one, I say pass the bill. If it has the Medicare expansion, pass the bill. I actually think the Medicare expansion + government administered plans with regulatory power would be better than a weak public option. But a bill without those things AND mandates would just lock in insurance company control, since there are no real price controls.

[ZombieHorde]

134. Do you know if the current HC plan is going to have maximum co-pays?

Will insurance companies be allowed to cut people off for the rest of a fiscal year once a patient uses a certain amount of coverage in a year?

[laughingliberal]

149. Annual caps were supposed to be outlawed. Story emerged over the weekend that had been quietly

removed allowing them to impose annual caps on 'certain conditions.' Have cancer? $20, 000-you're cut off for the year. Nice, huh? There was an outcry of sorts over this but I confess I don't know if they reinstated the original provision which would have outlawed annual and lifetime caps.

Co-pays are a different issue that relate to capping out of pocket expenses. Not sure where it stands now but last I heard about it was the out of pocket costs to the patient could not exceed $5000-10,000, annually, depending on the level of coverage you purchased. One caveat to that, however-expenses the insurance company does not cover do not count towards your out of pocket expense.

edited for grammar

[ZombieHorde]

155. Ouch. nt

[defendandprotect]

164. Harry Reid did that -- didn't he????

[laughingliberal]

170. Could be. No one has claimed responsibility and no one claims to know who did it nt

[defendandprotect]

171. I seem to have heard that on Schultz today . . . and maybe even here at DU today...???

[Patsy Stone]

135. I think something is better than nothing

and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I'm also willing to wait until there is a bill before taking manic swings at every bit of info. I find it's not good for my complexion and I don't feel good about myself in the morning.

Mostly, I just had to stop in and agree: Fuck you, Joe Lieberman.

[defendandprotect]

166. No -- you would be firmly putting corporations in charge of our health care ...???!!!

A bill with no public option is useless -- in fact, CRIMINAL.

Rather than focusing on Joe Lieberman, focus on the Democratic Party which has given

him, evidently, more power than Pres. Obama?

What do you think the GOP would have done with a Lieberman ???

Let him keep his seat?

Let him wag the Democratic Party agenda on health care?

[Patsy Stone]

210. The insurance companies

are already in charge of health care. If this bill saves even one life, IMO, it's worth it.

[defendandprotect]

211. This gives insurance companies/drug companies $600 BILLion/$800 BILLION . . .

and then we are told we can't afford health care for everyone?

This is merely a way to fill the pockets of corporations without providing any

benefit to citizens --

It may save one life right now -- it will cost many, many, many more lives hereafter --

I'd suggest you catch up with Jane Hamsher's article posted here at DU --

our problem is CORPORATISM/FASCISM --- and it is deadly -- yesterday, today and tomorrow.

There should be no compromises with it --

Think of the compromises the Founders made with the slave states -- which led to the

Civil War -- something we still haven't recovered from!

Fight to keep corporations out of health care . . . that's what the REFORM was supposed to

be about!!

[saltpoint]

137. Well, I like the post, Skinner.

Rec City.

[dflprincess]

138. What supporters of meaningful reform don't have

is the money to buy the votes in Congress.

[UrbScotty]

139. Thanks for being a voice of reason, Skinner!

Except I'm not sure about saying "fuck Lieberman" - I don't think he deserves that! :evilgrin:

[Yuugal]

140. What a load of crap

"the reality is that the watered down reform we now face is an improvement over the current system"

My kids will be losing their coverage and in its place will have NOTHING. After we are done paying the 10k a year for premiums and the 5k deductible they won't be able to afford to go anyway. Under SCHIP they went for free with no copays and no deductible. SCHIP will be ended when this farce begins. If the "reform" works out for you then fine but don't insult all of us who are going to have to watch our children go without so some fucking scumbag rich person can get his tenth yacht.

[Politics_Guy25]

143. Skinner, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this post

Thanks man! It was a moment of hope for me in what was, otherwise, a very depressing 24 hours on the HCR front.

[Danger Mouse]

144. Unfortunately, we have to look at what can be done with the Congress we have..

...not the Congress we wish we had.

[AllyCat]

145. Guess I'm just stoopid with no brain, but I don't see how this is an improvement

Mandating people to buy crummy, price-inflated insurance just so they have it and can't be said to be "uninsured" sounds to be really a bad idea. But then, I am a bear of very little brain apparently. And I certainly don't care about anyone else. Thanks for setting that straight for me Skinner.

[defendandprotect]

167. Cementing corporate power over our health care system is NOT an improvement -- it's CRIMINAL ...!!

[AllyCat]

173. I agree with you d and p

I can't believe Skinner thinks we are dumb.

[inna]

146. but it's NOT "an improvement over the current system"!!

It's a Deform, not a Reform, for plenty of reasons (that have been discussed on this board, and elsewhere, ad nauseam).

[deutsey]

147. It just further reinforces for me that we have no leverage against the monied interests

that actually own this country.

That said, I always find your posts thoughtful and I appreciate them, even when I'm not in total agreement with you.

[David Zephyr]

150. K&R. The good parts can be passed separately.

The rest should go the reconciliation route with 51 votes. Why not give a try.

[defendandprotect]

151. Yet, GOP somehow managed to lessen taxes on rich with 51 votes . . .

and pass Latin American trade bill with 54 votes ---

when the Democrats are the majority - they give it away to the GOP --

When the GOP is the majority or minority -- they get what they want done --

The key is that both of these oddities has to do with corporate money/corporate agenda --

corporatism as Jane Hamsher is pointing out --

And, as we've known for 40 years!!!

Over the last 40 years Democrats have continued to drop out and not vote because of this

fascist/corporate take over of our people's government.

Our legislators are pre-owned and pre-bribed by corporations --

If anyone expected anything different to happen, they're naive --



What's Plan B -- ????

[lonestarnot]

159. Didn't Mr. President through Rahm give up the ghost yesterday when

Rahm told Reid to compromise for Liebershitz? I've lost track :crazy:

[MissMarple]

160. Fuck Lieberman. We don't need 60 votes.

[hulka38]

169. It should read, "Fuck the Democratic leadership. We don't need 60 votes."

Lieberman sucks but we've known that for years. It's much more about what our leadership (Reid, and my Senator Durbin and former Senator Obama) does. The only one with a nut sack is Nancy.

[spanone]

165. make them filibuster....100%

let them explain why they don't want to give the american people healthcare....make them talk thru the holidays

[jberryhill]

168. And we will do neither of those things

We will suck it up and eat a big bowl of whatever exudes from the orifice of Lieberman's choice.

And we will celebrate it.

End of story.

You are in the bargaining stage of grief here.

[grahamhgreen]

172. Sorry to disagree about the crux of the problem, Skinner, but the buck stops where?

He started from a weak position and bargained away every aspect of real reform.

Forcing the working poor under penalty of law to buy insurance from fly-by-nght private insurance subsidiaries that will game the system and never pay a dime to cover the sick is not reform - it is a con, a scam, a rip-off.

And the majority knows it.

[shirlden]

179. No leverage is the problem

We have none.....zilch...zero. We can threaten to vote them out and that will not work because our votes can be manipulated. Second, they are laughing at us, because they walk out the door and drop into a high paid phony job with the industry they have served. Yeah, vote them out and watch how happy they are to finally not have to deal with us and can just pick up that huge paycheck they worked so hard for in the Senate and the House.
We are screwn !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And now that the heavy progressives, like those of us on this board, have deserted the Dem party, the Dems no longer need to pretend that they are any different than the Repigs. We need us a party. Young folks get going.............I'm too old and have no fight left in me. But I will cheer you on and send money. I will go door to door in my hood and what ever else we seniors can contribute.

[Enthusiast]

180. Don't threaten to do 'reconciliation',

do it! Just as the Republican (filth) did to pass their tax cuts. There is simply no excuse for inaction. We should have a Medicare buy-in health care bill by this afternoon. And we will laugh and rejoice when the Republicans cry in the wilderness.

[Cetacea]

183. +1

[kirby]

200. Keep in mind...

The so called Medicare buy-in was a very limited token jesture. It would have only been open to less than two million people. Not the sort of 'open enrollment' you would think when you think 'buy-in'.

[defendandprotect]

186. The folks who have "leverage" are the corporations . . .

and they have it because they have bought government, Congress, the whole lock,

stock and barrel --

as Jane Hamsher is pointing out in her article on CORPORATISM ...

[deutsey]

190. That's what I don't get about the "always look on the bright side of life" Democrats

Yeah, OK, so we get a meager, watered-down, toothless, health care bill passed that, imo, benefits insurance companies more than struggling working people.

Woo hoo! WE WON!!! In your FACE, GOP!!!

:shrug:

After 8 years of having pure, uncut shit shoved down our throats, are we so desparate for a "win" that we'll happily swallow watered-down shit?

[madokie]

187. I agree wholeheartedly

'and no matter what happens, fuck that guy' is what we, all of us, should never forget.

[katsy]

188. On the filibuster:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html?page=8&show_comment_id=21219590#comment_21219590

[Skinner]

189. If true, that is really disappointing.

They should just ditch the filibuster.

[katsy]

203. Agree.

[Chisox08]

191. I don't think you can do Health Care through reconciliation

unless you expand Medicare to everybody. I for one would be completely for expanding Medicare to everybody

[kirby]

192. The problem is we do not have leadership...

President Bush was both President and the leader of his party. Obama has not demonstrated the same leadership to his own party.

Back in July during his weekly radio address, Obama said he would veto any bill without a robust public option. So much for that promise.

This bill does not achieve the goal of reducing costs. All it does it subsidize the existing insurance industry. Rockefeller added an amendment that would require 90% of insurance premiums to go towards healthcare rather than overhead, profit, bonuses, etc. It looks like the amendment is going to be removed too.

The fact is we never had a robust public option on this bill. The house had a very limited one which the CBO said would only cover 6 million people and the Senates was worse, covering only 3 million.

The even bigger issue is that a lot of the promoted competition in the form of exchanges doesnt even materialize until 2014. In my opinion the next Republican Congress and President will probably repeal it.

[DallasNE]

193. We're On The Same Page

But when I brought up the reality in another thread the response was brutal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7228229&mesg_id=7233018

It reminded me of tea baggers. The only thing missing was the AK-47.

What this shows us is the special problems associated with exactly 60 members in the caucaus. 59 and we would be talking only about a reconciliation bill. 61 and no one Senator can dictate to the whole chamber. With 60 the Senate is completely disfunctional. The sad part is the American people seem to be drifting in the direction of favoring the obstruction at all cost ploy being used by the Republicans, meaning MSM is also disfunctional in terms of their traditional role. America is becoming ungovernorable. Can street violence be far behind?

[anachro1]

194. Try this on for size:

Try this on for size:

The administration never had any intention of providing the US with a public option or ANY "change" to our current health care systems. It was never supposed to happen, and we were all lied to.

Then Joe Lieberman agrees to be propped up as THE REASON we won't get it. And he knew what his role was.

Apparently even our president is in the pockets of the insurance companies.

[Joanne98]

195. This bill is a windfall for the insurance companies. If a Dem Senator fillibusters it...

The insurance cos will make the republicans vote for it which will expose them as frauds.

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. Not Really. The real crux is a refusal to use the leverage that supporters do have

The Democratic leadership should inform self described moderate Senators that they fully expect their support on a cloture vote for the current separate health care insurance reform act currently being finalized in the Senate. In return for that support their legitimate concerns will be listened to and taken into consideration in finalizing the details of the expanded government role in health care that will be pursued through Reconciliation. However should the current legislation be blocked in the Senate, that deal will be taken off the table and the Democratic leadership will feel free to craft and draft a Reconciliation proposal greatly expanding the public role without their input - since without winning passage of the private insurance controls and reforms contained in the bill currently under consideration, it will be necessary to create a very robust public health insurance system as competition to force private insurers to operate in the public interest.

In other words our real leverage is our threat to create the very robust options public options/ and even greater expansion of Medicare through Reconciliation than we were willing to compromise away in supposedly good faith negotiations with so called moderates in pursuing legislation through the conventional route.

Until obstructionists understand that there is a real price to pay for obstructionism they have nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain by being obstructionists. The worse that currently happens to them is they always succeed in watering down our initiatives via obstruction to an extent, the only issue in question is to what extent. The truth of the matter is if obstructionists manage to block private insurance regulation reforms through a filibuster the only tool left for the Federal government to use to keep private insurers honest will be to go around them by creating a much better public system, minimally a medicare plus 5% public option available to all.

So that is our leverage. Get out of the way of the current Senate legislation passing and be invited to the table to discuss the scope of the government run alternatives that will be pursued through Reconciliation, or get locked out of the room while the Democratic leadership crafts a very robust government plan that will be pursued through Reconciliation, technically for it's deficit reduction aspects.

[newtothegame]

199. No doubt, ram it all through! n/t

[PassingFair]

201. There IS NO REFORM unless prices are controlled. Kill the Bill.

From what I see of this bill, we will be mandated to
pay and there will be no control over how much the
insurance companies, hospitals and doctors will charge.

Without a public option or Medicare rates to negotiate
from, we will be LEGALLY at the mercy of the for profit
medical and insurance system.


This is WORSE than nothing.

[dhpgetsit]

202. You are only considering what our elected representatives can do.

What can WE do?

How about a general strike?

[freddie mertz]

204. Are you that sure that the president actually supports real reform?

I used to think that, not so much now.

Feingold has said that this watered down bill is what the president wanted from the beginning.

I am inclined to believe it.

[Javaman]

205. Like I said before, if we could couple health care reform with the fear propaganda

we would have single payer in a heart beat.

[valerief]

206. The Mafia would put Lieberman in a coma. That's leadership.

The rationale for war is that "some die for many." We know that's not true, but that's the lip service given for war. Well, health care is war. I'm not saying anyone s/b killed, of course, but there are old fashioned ways to get things done.

[NNN0LHI]

207. I think the problem is no matter how the final bill is crafted everyone won't like some part of it

Look at what happened when the Dems brought out their trial balloon of a $400.00 per month Medicare buy-in for those 55 to 64 years old for instance. Even DK was for that. As was Dr. Dean. But there were people here saying that would put them into the poor house. I don't disbelieve them. $400.00 sounds like a lot of money to me. I don't think I could afford it. And $400.00 was in the low range I was hearing.

That is why the Republicans never attempt something like this. They know if you do it every voter out there will be pissed off about at least one aspect of a bill like this and will hold that one thing against the party that did it for decades.

That is why the Republicans pretty much stick to wars. Everyone likes wars in America. War is about the only thing we can ever get huge majorities of our population to ever agree on.

Don

[MarjorieG]

208. Lieberman taking the heat for others also cowering to lobbyists-Medicare buy-in brought hopital and

Drs. wanting status quo or improved payments. No matter the scales are currently way off.

Unless the voting public can afford to replace the campaign dollars, we're stuck. And media wants its share of continuing influence and revenue. Unfortunately, Obama et all have to take what's possible.

[change_notfinetuning]

209. Crux? Obama administration is to lobbyists as Tiger Woods is to bimbos. He

took the oath, made the pledge, and then the devil made him do it. I guess that's the explanation. Satan and Rahm Emanuel, or is that redundant?

You know how we keep hearing DUers say that Obama never said he'd get us out of Afghanistan? Well, am I the only one who remembers his campaign rants about the D.C. lobbyists and how he would deflect their influence if he were elected? They were not going to be running the show on his watch. He would change Washington. Can anyone here honestly deny that lobbyists are just as influential, if not more influential, than before? Especially in regards to health care?

Obama is as insulated as any president I can remember. He has surrounded himself with Wall Street/Political/Business as Usualers. In his free time, he mingles with the high rollers (not only Democrats) at fund-raisers for the party - "our" party. Maybe he should spend more of his free time watching Bill Moyers and Ed Schultz on television, and meeting with and listening to us "regular" folk, real Democrats. Much to my chagrin, vision is non-existent in this administration. Ideas are unwelcome, unless from the previously failed insiders betting on the status quo.

This is no formula for hope or change. We can expect fine-tuning at best; more likely, derailment of the momentum of the Democratic Party. I am an optimist, but the future of the American people couldn't look any bleaker. This administration has squandered the opportunity of our lifetime for so many things, and insults us by proclaiming their failures as victories.

The crux with regards to health care? That the right to profit from Americans' need for health care is more sacred to Barack Obama's administration than the right of Americans to receive the health care they need and deserve, regardless of ability to pay. Take single-payer off the table, have single-payer advocates arrested and don't ask the CBO to issue an estimate of budgetary impact. That's listening to all sides, isn't it?

If you think this is improvement, you are under the spell of Rahm's Lullaby. One year ago, I enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama, and hope and change. Now, I just hope he gets something right for a change.

[BzaDem]

212. I am very happy that someone on this board sees reason.

I am astounded that people would really kill this bill if it were the only option. We should definitely fight for more, but if we reach the point where more is impossible, I am amazed that even one person on this board wants to kill it. Fighting for the uninsured has been a pillar of the Democratic party platform for decades. To kill a bill that helps 30 million people because it doesn't contain a public option (a very, very good policy but was just introduced in 2006) just seems to be completely, well, against what our party stands for.

K & R.

[readmoreoften]

213. Yes, it is hard to have more lobbying money than the insurers.

And I'm not sure where we'll come up with the billions to compete.