Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Health Care Reform: Now With PR Gimmicks! We're Doomed.

15758596062

Posts

  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Do you understand where we are?

    1) We can't pass a new bill in the Senate, because Republicans are assholes.
    2) So to pass a bill we need to pass the Senate bill in the House.
    3) The House HATES the Senate.
    4) In particular, the House hates the Senate bill.
    5) So we also need a reconciliation fix from the Senate as a good faith gesture to the House so they pass both the main bill and the fix.
    6) So we need fifty votes and Biden. You would think we could write that up and pass it without significant delay, but apparently not. We must first get Republican input on this thing they won't vote for and don't need to vote for.

    Yes because that is what 50 Democratic Senators want, to be able to say to their constituents "Look at those assholes!! See why I couldn't work with them?"

    Is that really so complicated. Do you really think they are at all interested in legitimately having a summit to hear Republican ideas?

    [edited for indoor voice]

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Subsidies don't kick in until 2013, IIRC, but aside from that all the regulatory reforms start up pretty quick and so help anyone who was at risk of losing insurance. Also, there was something that would serve as a temporary bridge to the 'exchanges' coming online on top of medicaid expansion and medicare improvements.

    Siiiiiiiiiiiiiide shoooooooooooow

    Just admit this is a stupid argument for passage.

    It's a great argument for a nice jobs bill, and a great criticism of not passing a better stimulous package. In the capacity of the healthcare debate and the matter of a few weeks though it's like trying to change a tire with an ice cream cake. It just doesn't belong.

    6 months is not a few weeks.

    The difference between late February and some time in March is though.

    So was when Baucus was totally going to finish up his draft proposal with Grassley. But sure, this time things could end differently.

    Well in that case I don't know why you even bothered to follow this at all since Bill Clinton failed last time around.

    Was it because the mean Obama man sold you the hope?

    And now you've decided nothing good will ever happen ever?

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    Well in that case I don't know why you even bothered to follow this at all since Bill Clinton failed last time around.

    Was it because the mean Obama man sold you the hope?

    And now you've decided nothing good will ever happen ever?

    No.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Well in that case I don't know why you even bothered to follow this at all since Bill Clinton failed last time around.

    Was it because the mean Obama man sold you the hope?

    And now you've decided nothing good will ever happen ever?

    No.

    Cheer up buddy.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    Well in that case I don't know why you even bothered to follow this at all since Bill Clinton failed last time around.

    Was it because the mean Obama man sold you the hope?

    And now you've decided nothing good will ever happen ever?

    No.

    Cheer up buddy.

    I'm sorry I disagree with you over the capability of Democrats to self immolate, but being cheerful doesn't seem to impact that regardless. Hell, I am cheery. I'm a white male about to get a graduate degree, and I'm going to go see a Bulls game tomorrow. Things are likely going to come up aces for me regardless of whether or not this bill fails along with other important reforms. That doesn't make the seemingly chronic systemic issues that go unaddressed by the government less significant. It's rather amazing that we've managed to come as far as we have as a country given how shitty our institutions are. It makes you wonder if we'd have flying cars and shit if we were a Parliamentary setup.

    tea-1.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    Do you understand where we are?

    1) We can't pass a new bill in the Senate, because Republicans are assholes.
    2) So to pass a bill we need to pass the Senate bill in the House.
    3) The House HATES the Senate.
    4) In particular, the House hates the Senate bill.
    5) So we also need a reconciliation fix from the Senate as a good faith gesture to the House so they pass both the main bill and the fix.
    6) So we need fifty votes and Biden. You would think we could write that up and pass it without significant delay, but apparently not. We must first get Republican input on this thing they won't vote for and don't need to vote for.

    Yes because that is what 50 Democratic Senators want, to be able to say to their constituents "Look at those assholes!! See why I couldn't work with them?"

    Is that really so complicated. Do you really think they are at all interested in legitimately having a summit to hear Republican ideas?

    [edited for indoor voice]

    Again: as long as they pass the bill their constituents won't give a damn how it was passed. Procedure is meaningless. What needs to happen, and will not be accomplished with this summit, is the House Dems and the Senate Dems need to sit down and figure out what needs to be in the reconciliation bill for the House Dems to sign on. And then they need to pass that. Consultations with the Republicans serve no purpose. Except, potentially, to embarrass the Republicans. Which of course, does nothing to pass the damn bill.

    EDIT: As a sidenote, by engaging in this argument, you're going to get a new thread and my mean, nasty title will go away.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The House and Senate Dems along with the President seem to be doing that as a preparation before the summit. White House aides are starting to talk about how passing things through reconciliation is actually pretty routine to soften the press up and get it ready.

    Are you always this pissed off when it looks like what you want to happen is about to happen?

    What you think about voters is kind of beside the point. It's what Congresspeople think about voters - and if they want this political cover in order to effect the reconciliation passage - great.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They've sounded like they were going to do good things for the past year. They always manage to find a way to not actually do that though. In other words: I don't trust the Democrats to actually do what they say until Barack Obama hands the 28th and final pen to Vicki Kennedy.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They've sounded like they were going to do good things for the past year. They always manage to find a way to not actually do that though. In other words: I don't trust the Democrats to actually do what they say until Barack Obama hands the 28th and final pen to Vicki Kennedy.

    It's 1:30 in the morning.

    Let's just leave it that we all hope it will happen, are afraid it won't and that if it does we'll party like hell.

    Jesus God let it end before April though.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    They've sounded like they were going to do good things for the past year. They always manage to find a way to not actually do that though. In other words: I don't trust the Democrats to actually do what they say until Barack Obama hands the 28th and final pen to Vicki Kennedy.

    It's 1:30 in the morning.

    Let's just leave it that we all hope it will happen, are afraid it won't and that if it does we'll party like hell.

    Jesus God let it end before April though.

    See! You're right there with us! Where you say April, we say: last August.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    They've sounded like they were going to do good things for the past year. They always manage to find a way to not actually do that though. In other words: I don't trust the Democrats to actually do what they say until Barack Obama hands the 28th and final pen to Vicki Kennedy.

    It's 1:30 in the morning.

    Let's just leave it that we all hope it will happen, are afraid it won't and that if it does we'll party like hell.

    Jesus God let it end before April though.

    See! You're right there with us! Where you say April, we say: last August.

    Gah.

    Basically my attitude is that as long as they are still trying I'm still with them.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Speaker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    They've sounded like they were going to do good things for the past year. They always manage to find a way to not actually do that though. In other words: I don't trust the Democrats to actually do what they say until Barack Obama hands the 28th and final pen to Vicki Kennedy.

    It's 1:30 in the morning.

    Let's just leave it that we all hope it will happen, are afraid it won't and that if it does we'll party like hell.

    Jesus God let it end before April though.

    See! You're right there with us! Where you say April, we say: last August.

    Gah.

    Basically my attitude is that as long as they are still trying I'm still with them.

    At some point though that kinda has to degenerate into wondering whether or not you're getting played.

    sig.png
  • GeorgeWashingtonPlunkittGeorgeWashingtonPlunkitt Registered User
    edited February 2010
    The Democratic Party is not cohesive enough to "play" anyone.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Democratic Party is not cohesive enough to "play" anyone.

    I'm not really trying to implicate the DNC in some grand conspiracy to sink the healthcare bill here, but for any given issue that strongly motivates people to vote for a particular candidate, the candidate is better off keeping that issue around for as long as he can while still appearing to be trying to resolve it.

    That sentence is a mouthful but it's late and I don't care.

    sig.png
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    At some point though that kinda has to degenerate into wondering whether or not you're getting played.

    Played for what?

    It's not like the Democrats have done well out of this whole thing politically.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Democratic Party is not cohesive enough to "play" anyone.

    I'm not really trying to implicate the DNC in some grand conspiracy to sink the healthcare bill here, but for any given issue that strongly motivates people to vote for a particular candidate, the candidate is better off keeping that issue around for as long as he can while still appearing to be trying to resolve it.

    That sentence is a mouthful but it's late and I don't care.

    The same way doctors keep people sick and firefighters occasionally start fires.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Arson rates amongst firefighters are actually abnormally high, and treating symptoms rather than causes is a commonly bitched-about facet of our current health care setup, sooo...

    Mostly kidding. Mostly.

    Purely from a game theory perspective, keeping an issue around so you can campaign on it makes sense if all you give a shit about is getting reelected (until you're put in such a position that you don't have any way to weasel your out of taking (meaningful!) action on that issue.)

    sig.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Arson rates amongst firefighters are actually abnormally high, and treating symptoms rather than causes is a commonly bitched-about facet of our current health care setup, sooo...

    Mostly kidding. Mostly.

    Purely from a game theory perspective, keeping an issue around so you can campaign on it makes sense if all you give a shit about is getting reelected (until you're put in such a position that you don't have any way to weasel your out of taking (meaningful!) action on that issue.)

    This is the why the Republicans never take meaningful action on abortion theory, right?

    The problem with this theory is that it tends to piss off the base. Which means it's like 50/50 likely, given the DNC's penchant to punch hippies.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Arson rates amongst firefighters are actually abnormally high, and treating symptoms rather than causes is a commonly bitched-about facet of our current health care setup, sooo...

    Mostly kidding. Mostly.

    Purely from a game theory perspective, keeping an issue around so you can campaign on it makes sense if all you give a shit about is getting reelected (until you're put in such a position that you don't have any way to weasel your out of taking (meaningful!) action on that issue.)

    This is the why the Republicans never take meaningful action on abortion theory, right?

    The problem with this theory is that it tends to piss off the base.

    Eventually, once you run out of people to blame for Issue X not getting resolved. The 60-seat Senate majority makes whining about Republican obstructionism somewhat difficult to take seriously, which is probably a big part of why Reid is getting his ass handed to him in November.

    It's also worth noting that while it may piss the base off - eventually - it's not like they're going to vote for the other guy. At worst, your fundraising and turnout dips for a cycle or two, and the incumbent eats a primary challenge.

    Edit: Thank you for removing the last remnants of idealism towards the legislative process I had, Professor Feig!

    sig.png
  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    That's what was so frustrating about health care overall -- at the end of the day, Dems sank healthcare. The Republicans had, far as I can tell, absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Michael Steele even taunted Obama about the fact.

    EDIT: Well okay, they had something to do with it, in that they did some excellent fearmongering and got the Blue Dogs' constituencies to make it hazardous for them to vote on anything that included a public option.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Eh, the public option is popular even in the Blue Dog areas. It's way more popular in Arkansas than Blanche Lincoln is, for example.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Eh, the public option is popular even in the Blue Dog areas. It's way more popular in Arkansas than Blanche Lincoln is, for example.

    This is surprising. Source?

    And it was my impression that a combination of constituents' vehement opposition to some of the more generous proposals put forth (and mostly incorporated into the House bill) and the sheer impact of lobbyist money that effectively "stole" those last few votes from the passage of the Senate bill.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Eh, the public option is popular even in the Blue Dog areas. It's way more popular in Arkansas than Blanche Lincoln is, for example.

    This is surprising. Source?

    And it was my impression that a combination of constituents' vehement opposition to some of the more generous proposals put forth (and mostly incorporated into the House bill) and the sheer impact of lobbyist money that effectively "stole" those last few votes from the passage of the Senate bill.

    Psh, it was lobbying and them being greedy, soulless motherfuckers (particularly Landrieu and Nelson).

    Poll from October back when this mattered.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    This is the kinda thing that makes me wish more people published the numbers on exactly how much each member of Congress is paid by a given lobby. There was some guy on MSNBC pulling exactly this stunt, but it doesn't get play anywhere else in the media.

    <Obligatory election finance reform plug>

  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Arson rates amongst firefighters are actually abnormally high, and treating symptoms rather than causes is a commonly bitched-about facet of our current health care setup, sooo...

    Mostly kidding. Mostly.

    Purely from a game theory perspective, keeping an issue around so you can campaign on it makes sense if all you give a shit about is getting reelected (until you're put in such a position that you don't have any way to weasel your out of taking (meaningful!) action on that issue.)

    This is the why the Republicans never take meaningful action on abortion theory, right?

    The problem with this theory is that it tends to piss off the base.

    Eventually, once you run out of people to blame for Issue X not getting resolved. The 60-seat Senate majority makes whining about Republican obstructionism somewhat difficult to take seriously, which is probably a big part of why Reid is getting his ass handed to him in November.

    It's also worth noting that while it may piss the base off - eventually - it's not like they're going to vote for the other guy. At worst, your fundraising and turnout dips for a cycle or two, and the incumbent eats a primary challenge.

    Edit: Thank you for removing the last remnants of idealism towards the legislative process I had, Professor Feig!

    On one hand, I can't blame them for going after Republican votes - after all, if you have Olympia Snowe, who at least voted for the Senate Finance bill and might have been close on the real deal (emphasis on might), you can say fuck you to Lieberman and Ben Nelson's sweetheart deal like we all wanted to. And after it really became obvious that Snowe was not on-board, the Democrats didn't waste nearly as much time. On the other hand, grow a fucking pair already.

  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    So now Reid says reconciliation for the PO is a recourse, but that the house has to vote it through first.

    The null hypothesis is that this changes very little, right?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The function of the "base" of either party is to nominate left- or right- of center candidates in primaries.

    If those candidates lose and we're stuck with centrists, then we're stuck with centrists. It is true that they can ignore us and "punch hippies" because they won and the hippie candidate lost. Oh well. Suck it up you silly geese!

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Kastanj wrote: »
    So now Reid says reconciliation for the PO is a recourse, but that the house has to vote it through first.

    The null hypothesis is that this changes very little, right?
    A little bit of pressure can probably get a functional public option through the House. After that, it's up to Reid or whoever has his balls to the fire to actually force through reconciliation.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Kastanj wrote: »
    So now Reid says reconciliation for the PO is a recourse, but that the house has to vote it through first.

    The null hypothesis is that this changes very little, right?

    The House doesn't trust the Senate at all, so this is probably harmful. Depends if Reid is demanding they pass both the fix and the main bill before the Senate passes the fix or just the fix.

    If it's the latter we're not too screwed, if it's the former we're very screwed.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Can't we just have any senators not voting for the public option "mysteriously" come down with a disease thats also a preexisting condition

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Can't we just have any senators not voting for the public option "mysteriously" come down with a disease thats also a preexisting condition
    You'd have to imagine that they get special treatment when that call comes into the insurance office where normally bonuses are given for denying coverage.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Can't we just have any senators not voting for the public option "mysteriously" come down with a disease thats also a preexisting condition

    Senators have goverment Health Care and not the crapy kind, but the Cadillac kind.

    Fucking Socialists.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    big l wrote: »
    Arson rates amongst firefighters are actually abnormally high, and treating symptoms rather than causes is a commonly bitched-about facet of our current health care setup, sooo...

    Mostly kidding. Mostly.

    Purely from a game theory perspective, keeping an issue around so you can campaign on it makes sense if all you give a shit about is getting reelected (until you're put in such a position that you don't have any way to weasel your out of taking (meaningful!) action on that issue.)

    This is the why the Republicans never take meaningful action on abortion theory, right?

    The problem with this theory is that it tends to piss off the base.

    Eventually, once you run out of people to blame for Issue X not getting resolved. The 60-seat Senate majority makes whining about Republican obstructionism somewhat difficult to take seriously, which is probably a big part of why Reid is getting his ass handed to him in November.

    It's also worth noting that while it may piss the base off - eventually - it's not like they're going to vote for the other guy. At worst, your fundraising and turnout dips for a cycle or two, and the incumbent eats a primary challenge.

    Edit: Thank you for removing the last remnants of idealism towards the legislative process I had, Professor Feig!

    On one hand, I can't blame them for going after Republican votes - after all, if you have Olympia Snowe, who at least voted for the Senate Finance bill and might have been close on the real deal (emphasis on might), you can say fuck you to Lieberman and Ben Nelson's sweetheart deal like we all wanted to. And after it really became obvious that Snowe was not on-board, the Democrats didn't waste nearly as much time. On the other hand, grow a fucking pair already.

    That's basically why Republican's aren't blameless. Universal obstructionism places the legislative pivot point at 60th most Liberal/40th most Conservative Democrat. Meaning that due to the Dems 'only' having 60 seats they had pretty much no leverage over what Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson et. al. wanted because each of them were the '60th vote' necessary to get things passed. If there were 61 Democrats in the Senate, or if the Republicans were acting in good faith that would mean that you could play people off of each other in order to reign in their excesses.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    This'll probably need to be reposted in the next thread since we're 1 post away from 100 pages.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/reid_democrats_will_use_reconc.html
    Reid: Democrats will use reconciliation to finish health-care reform
    Big, encouraging news on health-care reform today: Harry Reid says that Senate Democrats will use the reconciliation process to finish the bill within the next 60 days.

    I've noticed some confusion about what this means, so some quick context: Reid is not talking about rewriting the bill or passing the whole thing through reconciliation. He's talking about passing a small package of fixes through reconciliation so that the House and Senate bills come into alignment.

    This is actually the sort of situation reconciliation was designed to address, as Brookings' Henry Aaron explains here (pdf). Budget reconciliation is called "reconciliation" because it's supposed to speed the, well, reconciliation of the differences between two budget bills. That's exactly what's left to do with the health-care reform bills, which were indeed part of the 2010 budget and whose passage is expected in the 2011 budget.

    Because this is what the process is actually meant to do, it doesn't present the manifold problems of using reconciliation for the entire bill. Things like the insurance market reforms have already passed with 60 votes in the Senate and 220 in the House. They're done. What's left are some tweaks to the way the bill spends and raises money (that is to say, tweaks to its budget implications) that are needed in order to, yes, reconcile the two bills. Reconciliation works for this because reconciliation was designed to do this.

  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    This'll probably need to be reposted in the next thread since we're 1 post away from 100 pages.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/reid_democrats_will_use_reconc.html
    Reid: Democrats will use reconciliation to finish health-care reform
    Big, encouraging news on health-care reform today: Harry Reid says that Senate Democrats will use the reconciliation process to finish the bill within the next 60 days.

    I've noticed some confusion about what this means, so some quick context: Reid is not talking about rewriting the bill or passing the whole thing through reconciliation. He's talking about passing a small package of fixes through reconciliation so that the House and Senate bills come into alignment.

    This is actually the sort of situation reconciliation was designed to address, as Brookings' Henry Aaron explains here (pdf). Budget reconciliation is called "reconciliation" because it's supposed to speed the, well, reconciliation of the differences between two budget bills. That's exactly what's left to do with the health-care reform bills, which were indeed part of the 2010 budget and whose passage is expected in the 2011 budget.

    Because this is what the process is actually meant to do, it doesn't present the manifold problems of using reconciliation for the entire bill. Things like the insurance market reforms have already passed with 60 votes in the Senate and 220 in the House. They're done. What's left are some tweaks to the way the bill spends and raises money (that is to say, tweaks to its budget implications) that are needed in order to, yes, reconcile the two bills. Reconciliation works for this because reconciliation was designed to do this.

    427 columns about this being a partisan thing that will take away precious time from cutting taxes to create jobs.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Really I just want them to get it done so the country doesn't continue the downward slide in the 10-20 years it takes for something to happen in congress once Democrats lose their tenuous and technical majority.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Really I just want them to get it done so the country doesn't continue the downward slide in the 10-20 years it takes for something to happen in congress once Democrats lose their tenuous and technical majority.

    This, and also so that the Senate can move on to CLEAN-TEA (with the infrastructure bank and better funding formulas for New Starts), and ACES. Those are basically everything I wanted out of an Obama administration, plus the repeal of DADT (which is in process) and DOMA (which isn't) and generic good governance.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Really I just want them to get it done so the country doesn't continue the downward slide in the 10-20 years it takes for something to happen in congress once Democrats lose their tenuous and technical majority.

    This, and also so that the Senate can move on to CLEAN-TEA (with the infrastructure bank and better funding formulas for New Starts), and ACES. Those are basically everything I wanted out of an Obama administration, plus the repeal of DADT (which is in process) and DOMA (which isn't) and generic good governance.

    One positive upside to going through with reconciliation is that it tells Republicans with no ambiguity that they either work with Democrats or get shoved out of the way. Right now they get away with it because they probably don't think the Democrats have the guts to go through with reconciliation.

    "Why didn't you try to get our needs addressed in x bill when you knew it was passing anyway?" is more powerful than "Why did you work with the Democrats?".

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Huge boners all around.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Does mean the zombie public option is getting chainsawed though.

    Also: words, not actions.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
This discussion has been closed.