Howard Dean is a doctor. Not a Senate parliamentarian.

[BzaDem]

Dean keeps saying we should kill this bill BECAUSE we can go into reconciliation and pass a better bill.

If you want to defer to Dean on health care policy, that is one thing. But to defer to him on Senate procedure is ridiculous. Every single liberal Democratic senator is going to vote for cloture. Every single one. From Bernie Sanders to Roland Burris to Sherrod Brown to Russ Feingold. If they thought they could get a better bill through reconciliation, they would vote against cloture. They would stop the process now and demand to go to reconciliation. In fact, they would have stopped the process earlier and demanded it.

Reconciliation is one of the most complicated Senate procedures imaginable, and HUGE parts of the bill are going to be cut through arcane rules and challenges that will take months to rule on. The resulting healthcare bill is going to make this bill look like Single Payer.

Senators are in a position to know this. They have been through reconciliation on more minor, less controversial issues. They know how much the Senate Parliamentarian is going to rule out of order, because they have seen the Senate Parliamentarian rule entire pillars of legislation out of order year after year and in some cases decade after decade.

Dean has not seen this. He does not have the experience of watching an entire bill collapse because most of it is wiped out due to arcane rules. He does not have the knowledge of Senate Procedure that actual Senators has.

And it isn't just one Senator saying this. It is EVERY SINGLE liberal Senator. Even Bernie Sanders knows how much will get cut from this bill if we go to reconciliation. If he thought the reconciliation bill would be better, he would vote against cloture and kill the current bill. He won't. He hasn't even threatened to filibuster (just to vote against final passage, which would be meaningless). That is evidence enough.

[Pirate Smile]

1. K & R

[AllentownJake]

2. He says in the current form he can't support the bill

and it should be fixed or trashed.

[BzaDem]

3. Every time he says this, he says that it is because we can get a "better" bill in reconciliation.

[AllentownJake]

4. You could expand Medicare in reconciliation

Seeing that the President is willing to fuck over the American people because of the political implications of his epic failures as a leader, I'll stick with Dean.

[BzaDem]

6. Yes, you could. Pay no heed that premiums would be thousands of dollars due to adverse selection

because adverse selection cannot be solved under reconciliation.

[AllentownJake]

11. No Government plan, no mandates

That simple. You want to expand medicaid, medicare, or other existing problems fine. No Public Option, No insurance mandates.

I'm not being handed over to the insurance cartel for Obama's political future.

[BzaDem]

14. Honestly, this bill is probably going to pass (with a mandate and no public option).

I am not posting this because I think there is a real liberal threat to the bill. There isn't. Luckily, house members and Senators are much more educated about what can be accomplished than most people here, and they are going to vote for it.

I am posting here to try to explain why reconciliation won't work.

[AllentownJake]

17. It will not survive the House

They do not have the votes there.

[BzaDem]

19. I am bookmarking this thread.

Not one liberal (except DK) is going to vote against HCR (with a mandate, without a public option). Not one. It has never happened, despite threats on all sorts of issues. Even Maxine Waters and Anthony Weiner say they may vote for the bill. If they really had any intention of killing it, the first thing they would do is go on TV and say that there is no chance in hell that they would vote for a bill with a mandate and no PO. They would say it over and over. Instead, they are hedging.

But whatever. Feel free to disagree. You will be proven wrong shortly.

[AllentownJake]

24. They do that

They can kiss their majority goodbye

2010 will make 1994 look like a pleasant experience.

The only positive thing for the President, like Bill Clinton, he will have a foil for 2012.

[BzaDem]

26. They probably have a 50/50 shot at losing their majority no matter what happens

but it has nothing to do with a mandate and no PO.

There are a lot of people here that would rather have 30 million people have no choice than a private-only choice. I'll grant you that. But "here" is not a good representation of the Democratic party. Most Democrats would wonder what you are smoking if you thought that. After all, 93% of Democrats support Obama, yet every pro-Obama thread here seems to be getting recced down to <0.

The threat of progressive backlash in 2010 is really overblown. They might lose their majority, but if they do, it would probably happen even if they passed a PO and no mandate. Many Democrats don't even know what a PO or mandate is. Turnout among Democrats would be low even if we passed single payer, and turnout among Republicans will be high.

[AllentownJake]

28. I'd take a look at those numbers next week

Not this week.

[PassingFair]

53. Now I remember you....

I will bookmark this as well.

Your ball is picking up the DLC channel.

[Ildem09]

5. your assumption is rediculous

Just because GOVERNOR and FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN Dean was never a senator does not mean is not very well versed in parliamentary procedure. Secondly never underestimate Senators. If Joe can have a piss party and ruin everything why cant progressives. If this bill includes the mandate I will Urge Roland Burris and Dick Durbin to vote no, on cloture. I hope the bill fails.. then try again when we have a real majority of actual you know Democrats who understand what the party stands for.. those pesky little concepts and ideals that make democrats, welp democrats and not DLC corporatist shills like Obama and Company. We have waited 100 years for this. we can wait a little longer.

[BzaDem]

7. My point is that they WON'T vote no on cloture.

You can urge and scream and whatever all you want, but they still won't listen to you. This isn't because they hate you. It is because after being immersed in Senate procedure for years or decades, they know that Dean is wrong about what can be accomplished under reconciliation. I trust the 30 most liberal Senators over Howard Dean on Senate procedure.

[Ildem09]

9. also

the reason Bernie, Sherrod, et al are keen to vote this turd through is because there is still conference committee. given if Turdbill2k9 isn't tiled waay towards HR 3962 I doubt Bernie and Sherrod would have any trouble voting against cloture

[BzaDem]

10. Nope. There might not even be a conference committee. Sherrod and Bernie know this.

The House might very well vote for the Senate bill whole if it is clear that conference won't improve the bill.

[Ildem09]

12. Yeah there is going to be Conference

They've been talking about it on Cspan all day. Bernie even mentioned yesterday. the ping-pong concept was shelved quickly it was a trial balloon that went over like led

[BzaDem]

16. Just like on the credit card bill. Except whoops -- everyone changed their mind and they ping ponged

The exact same stuff was said about the credit card bill right before it was all proved bullshit (and the ping pong happened).

[Ildem09]

18. one problem

the CC bill was small potatoes.. HCR is the single largest thing attempted in 20 years. so i think they are going to mind the P's and Q's on this. I study politics for my job. I have a pretty good handle on how things work

[BzaDem]

21. If a conservadem didn't want a conference, they could fillibuster the motion to appoint conferees.

It takes 60 votes to appoint conferees.

The reason that they might not do this is because they know that any HCR bill that might go to conference will look almost identical to the Senate version.

I'm not saying there is a 100% chance that conference will be skipped. They will do conference if they don't think it is a threat to the final passage of the bill (though again, it will look almost identical to the Senate). But if approval for the bill is tanking and they are afraid that Ben Nelson or someone else might back off in the Senate on a conference report, they will absolutely ping it.

[AllentownJake]

20. No one was watching the Credit Card Bill

Every single democratic special interest group is watching HCR

[AllentownJake]

13. The Unions are threatning to revolt

The chances of the House voting on a bill without a public option = 0

[Ildem09]

15. if the cheerleaders and DLC kids

Don't think the progressives can or would send the party back out into the wilderness for a while they are sadly mistaken

[readmoreoften]

27. Yup. What's the point of having a party that represents those who oppose you?

Support the Opposition or Support Those who Support the Opposition! And if you don't Support those who Support the Opposition, you're just a dirty shill for the Opposition!

[readmoreoften]

8. Probably why he's so clear-sighted on the issue. /nt

[LooseWilly]

22. Yet no one has offered any explanation of why reconciliation can't expand medicare to all.

I therefore suspect that it can, at least in theory. Sanders has also said that he's not against the idea, merely that he's still trying to improve the bill on the track that it's currently on. The implication being that, if he can't improve the bill currently under consideration in the Senate, he may well vote against it, and he may well support the reconciliation bill that Dean is arguing for.

The problem that I have heard of is that many subcommittee chairmen aren't in support of the reconciliation option, and it might be difficult to work a bill through reconciliation without their support. If Obama, as head of the Democratic Party, and Reid really want to pass reform... and this current crappy bill dies... they could re-assign those chairmanships if the current chairmen are unwilling to play ball (assuming they have the collective nerve). Since the Senate may well pass this sorry bill just to pass something... the House may well be the stumbling block that stands up for progressive values (just as they were earlier in the process when the WH seemed to be hinting that they were comfortable with abandoning the public option even back then).

It's a doable plan of action. Theoretically, and probably realistically. But only if some leadership is shown. I have no more faith in Obama showing that leadership... but I hold onto a glimmer of hope that "Give 'Em Hell Harry", as Reid likes to bill himself on his fundraising emails, might decide to go for it and show some real leadership if only to help his re election prospects in '10 in Nevada.

Pelosi can't do it all... though at this point I have to say that she's the only one who's shown any loyalty or responsiveness to the progressives that are apparently no longer welcome to status as part of the base. (Honorary homosexuals, in the words of another thread.)

[BzaDem]

25. Oh, if you want to expand Medicare to all you can do that with reconciliation.

The problem is that such a plan wouldn't get 25% of the votes in the House or Senate. Reconciliation only helps if you can still get a majority vote. Even in the house, they barely got 220 votes (with 218 needed) on a watered down public option that would only cover 3 million people.

[LooseWilly]

29. You may be right... but I do think it's worth a try. If it fails, then the Dems have failed.

I'm not willing to endorse a bill with a mandate and no alternative to private insurance.

If that means that the country stays on its current untenable course... and goes bankrupt... so be it.

I'm willing to be as stubborn as the Republicans... and if the country crashes down around me... well, I have less to lose than the corporations that're funding the Republicans.

In the meantime, if the Democrats are willing to fight, the effort might win them some support with the public, especially on an issue that the public supports. The fight might mean the difference between electoral wins and losses in '10.

Or the Democrats can go with the "back down and try to spin an obvious ass whipping as being done for the public good"... despite the fact that what they settled for will feel like nothing more than an added tax for an awful lot of potential voters... including me.

[BzaDem]

30. I guess I just have a different values system.

I am not as stubborn as the Republicans. I want to help my fellow citizen. I want to help the 30 million people without insurance. Private insurance is a tremendous help over no insurance, as horrible as it is. It makes the difference between living and dying for tens of thousands per year, and it makes the difference between bankruptcy and not bankruptcy for many times that.

You have every right to not think as I do, and to tell those 30 million people to remain uninsured because you don't like private insurers (a dislike shared by me and everyone else). But for me, I consider the want to help people what makes me a Democrat in the first place.

[JCMach1]

23. Reid and Obama should have made it clear to everyone you are with the party on Cloture OR

you are out of the party...!

Vote in the end how you like, but vote with your party to stop the obstruction by the right...

[regnaD kciN]

31. No, they should have made that clear to Lieberman before last week...

[BzaDem]

32. Obama and Reid had NO leverage with Lieberman.

Lieberman could become a Republican tomorrow and probably have a better chance of winning re-election than if he were a Democrat. There is nothing Obama or Reid could legally do to make him change his mind.

[regnaD kciN]

35. They have no more leverage with Sanders or Burris...

Sanders isn't even a Democrat, and would defeat any Democrat or Republican challengers in Vermont because of his personal popularity there -- like the Kennedys in Massachusetts, he's become a political institution by himself.

Burris isn't running for re-election, will be ending his political career after he retires next year, and (after the way he was treated upon his appointment) has no reason to be swayed by "party loyalty."

[BzaDem]

38. That is true. But Sanders and Burris are going to vote for cloture.

The reason is not because they are weak. It is because they care about human suffering. Sanders wants to help 30 million people. Burris wants to help 30 million people.

Lieberman couldn't care less about 30 million people. That is why no one has leverage over him. He would have no problem having them remain uninsured just to settle a political score.

[dkf]

39. Oh but Lieberman wants Homeland Security for his number one

priority. Israel always comes first after all.

[frustrated_lefty]

33. You're a troll. You have repeatedly misrepresented

Dean's statements and suggestions. You recently posted with a title indicating that Dean lied, and in another claiming that Dean doesn't know what he's talking about, and have consistently misrepresented what he has suggested: toss out this piece of crap legislation and try for something better.

Dean has executive experience running one of the only state governments with a surplus while still maintaining social programs. While I think he has his flaws, his efforts are honestly meant, not empty votes bought by corporate parasites.

Because I find your posts so offensive, if you continue with this nonsense, I will reply with excerpts from your previous posts so everyone can have a sense of context.

[BzaDem]

37. Please do.

I will continue posting what I think, and I don't care if that hurts your feelings.

Please post whatever excerpts you want. I know what I am talking about and I will defend every single word I say. Dean did lie, and in another instance had no idea what he was talking about. I haven't misrepresented anything he has said one bit. He has misrepresented the bill and I have posted excerpt after excerpt of the bill to prove it. Some people against the bill who read my posts agreed with me. If you want me to do it again on this thread by my guest. Please do.

[PassingFair]

54. I think we should let his posts sink.

Don't kick this shill's posts.

Let his circle-jerk DLC friends try to
keep pushing this crap.

[regnaD kciN]

34. Yes and no...

Yes in that I agree that reconciliation is a lot harder than many of those calling for its use understand.

No in that I don't think that necessarily means that everyone who recognizes this is going to vote for cloture -- especially on final approval of the conference report (and, if you think this bill will be easily "ping-ponged" through the House, you're dreaming; even if they grudgingly accept the loss of the public option, there are a lot of other differences House members will demand to be reconciled). I can think of several of those Senators you mention (Burris and Sanders, and maybe even Feingold) who will be quite willing to filibuster what they judge to be a bad bill. And why shouldn't they, if that's how they see it?

[ima_sinnic]

36. thank god for Dean, then, putting pressure on to make them get it right

SOMEbody had to take the fall (which president Rahm and the rest of the corrupt insiders will ensure)--if, because of his pointing out that the emperor of a health care bill has no clothes, Congress is ultimately forced into reconciliation and a "months-long" process of getting right so it "ends up looking more like single payer" (I am paraphrasing here), I have no problem with that.

I mean, are you in some kind of hurry to be extorted by insurance companies?

Now go running back to Rahm to get some more stupid talking points. Your little club is getting all too obvious around here--as you've done in DC and the rest of the country, you're doing on a small scale here: simply making life more unpleasant for people.

[JCMach1]

44. Bless Dean for what he did, especially if the kick in the rear does some good...

i.e. if this goes to reconciliation...

[leveymg]

40. Just out of curiosity, what are your credentials to lecture us on Senate rules?

You've been saying this stuff about Dean for days, defending the Senate Bill, and telling us that Reconciliation is impossible and bad. What's the basis for your assumed expertise?

[BzaDem]

42. Did you even read my OP?

I am not saying that I am right because of "my exptertise" on Senate rules.

I am saying that I am right because ALL of the liberal Senators in the Senate disagree with him about reconciliation. Because if any progressive Senator thought that a better bill could be passed by reconciliation, they would force them to do it by reconciliation by voting against cloture.

I am relying on the multi-year and in some instances multi-decade expertise of Senators. Not myself.

[leveymg]

46. So, you have no particular knowledge of the Senate or Capitol Hill? Dean was DNC Chair

I'll defer to him, not you on this one. It's obnoxious of you to say he doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Senate rules.

Yes, I've read this and a few of your posts with some interest.

[BzaDem]

47. Once again, I am not asking you to defer to me. I am asking you to defer to progressive Senators. nt

[Tailormyst]

52. The poster is a victim

A victim who's captors have convinced him they know whats best for him. Captors that have brainwashed him into believing they somehow know best, somehow are smarter and better then he is. It's very sad.

[cali]

41. hahahahaha. yeah, dearie, Dean is merely a doctor. It's not like

he was a state legislator or lt guv or guv for 11 freakin' years. It's not like he was Chair of the DNC for 4 fucking years, honey. He's just a doc. What the hell could he possibly know about the Senate.

Idiot.

[BzaDem]

43. I'm not saying he wasn't a state legislator or governor or chair of the DNC.

I was saying he was a doctor as a compliment.

I was simply saying that he does not know nearly as much about Senate procedures as the people in the Senate who have been dealing with Senate procedures for DECADES (and in some instances WROTE those procedures).

[pokercat999]

45. That's why if the liberal senators want to actually pass

health care they will hold ALL legislation to a filibuster threat. They must join together and vow to shut down the senate completely until health care with medi-care for all is passed.

[BzaDem]

48. They won't, because they know if they tried Medicare for all still would not be passed. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

49. it would pass "like that" if someone eloquent, galvanizing, and highly respected would explain it

to the American people with every ounce of conviction and logic. To me it is sooo obvious how it could work, that it would even work at all, but The People are frightened by words like "socialism" that they've been trained to recoil in horror upon hearing (gee, I wonder how that happened?).

now, who do we know like that? hmmm? don't we have any good orators at all who can explain what it would all mean, how it would work, and how it is NOT something to fear or reject? I can think of one person who'd be perfect for that--but he obviously doesn't have the desire or the stomach for what is basically right. nor would it help his own bottom line to do so--I mean, one hand washes the other--and We The People ain't one of those hands.

[quaker bill]

50. I am sorry

his oratory is good, but not magical. He has no pixie dust to sprinkle on this and is just one voice, and a voice largely not trusted by slightly less than half of the country.

[Tailormyst]

51. How the hell do you stay upright after all that spinning?

None of those people in DC give a shit about anyone but themselves. They are playing you, like they have played all of us. You defend their greed and corruption by claiming anyone against them couldn't possibly understand how fucking tough their job is. Their job is not tough. Trying to hide the greed corruption and scandal from the voters is the ONLY thing about their jobs. If they were standing in front of you punching you in the face repeatedly you would find some way to excuse their behavior because they have you convinced that they are so above you in every way. It's disgusting and you need to snap the fuck out of it. They are no better then you or any of us. They could do the right thing IF THEY WANTED TO !

WAKE UP