If we "knew" reconciliation was impossible, would we still feel so betrayed?

[regnaD kciN]

Poll question: If we "knew" reconciliation was impossible, would we still feel so betrayed?

For those who haven't seen it, BzaDem has posted an interesting explanation on how reconciliation couldn't have been used to pass a cost-effective public option unless other, non-reconcilable terms found in the current bill were voted in first. Now, right off the bat, I'll have to say that I have no idea if BzaDem is correct in his or her analysis, but I will say it appears to be a pretty convincing case on the face of it.

So, imagine if, at the start of this whole procedure, we had understood that reconciliation could not be used to get a public option unless the rest of the bill, individual mandates and all, had been passed first through normal procedures. (You could put a public option into the overall bill, but it would require 60 votes no matter what -- no procedural shortcuts.) Therefore, we realized from the get-go that the only way we could come up with health care reform of any kind would be by getting everybody, including the ConservaDems, on board -- even one defection would kill any chance. Now, assume that Lieberman pulls off his act early on, making it clear that any public option, including a triggered one, would get him to break away -- and that we knew that Obama had no leverage over him, especially once Lieberman painted himself into a corner with a very public, very unequivocal declaration.

The choices are to either go ahead with a bill with an individual mandate and no public option, but with subsidies, the exchange, insurance restrictions, etc., and the prospect of passing a public option or similar program further down the road, or abandoning the current effort at health-care entirely, and waiting until Lieberman (and possibly some of the other ConservaDems, depending on their intransigence) could be replaced by more progressive Democrats who would be more amenable to the public option...even though it might be 2013 or 2015 before such an effort could be made, and, even then, the party makeup of Congress might be less-likely to pass anything. How would you choose?

I ask this because I suspect that much of the anger at Obama comes from our sense that, had he wanted to, he could have gotten a better bill through reconciliation, and opted to kowtow to the right and discount his base instead. But, if you were to become convinced that reconciliation was an impossibility, how would you view the bill now?

(I'm not trying to steer you in one direction or the other. I'm not even sure of how I would vote knowing that scenario. And I really don't know if BzaDem's assessment is on target or not. But, if it was, and if you knew that from the get-go, would you still be so upset at Obama going along with Lieberman as you may be now?)

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. If you KNEW the final HCR reform bill was already written 6 mos ago

then would you feel betrayed?

Obama and Pharma wrote the bill six months ago. The Dems and the Repugs in Washington are all laughing at us.

Lieberman is giggling.

Nelson gets one more "last act" to play on us... he will demand more "anti-abortion" language. They will argue it out, then give it to him... and SURPRISE!

They will announce "the bill" on Xmas Eve! Everyone can go home and have dinner with their families.

Folks... the deal was made six months ago. You have been played -- by both sides.

[regnaD kciN]

2. Lots of unsupported claims there...

...that really don't have anything to do with my question.

But thanks for playing.

[seeinfweggos]

5. link please, or are you just making shit up?

[lamp_shade]

3. A slight bend in the rules might get a nod from the senate parliamentarian, but a deep bend

or a break won't. If it did, this would spell disaster down the road if the repubs were to ever regain power. To use reconciliation would be extremely dangerous, and Harry knows this.

[AndyA]

7. The Republicans used reconciliation to force through bills during the Bush years.

– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts (HR 1836, 3/26/01)
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts (HR 2, 3/23/03)
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HR 4297, 5/11/06)
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05)

I would say they set the precedent, and Reid could just say if it were good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

Edit: to fix brackets that were not showing properly on DU.

[fasttense]

4. Your post only offers 2 possibilities, but there are many more.

What if they drop the mandate and passed this, then followed up with reconciliation?

Or what if they passed this regressive legislation and never again did anything. We all will be at the mercy of corporations that have proven time and time again that they would rather see us die than spend any of their precious profits.

I feel like telling congress, "it's the mandate stupid". If not for that awful crappy, regressive, Tea Tax like, demand, it would be better than nothing.

But with the mandate it is worse than nothing.

At least now, when I can't afford the premiums, I can cancel. But what will be my choices with the mandate?

[lonestarnot]

6. Bullshit!