Dems threaten to use 51-vote tactic for health bill if they lose in Mass

[IndianaGreen]

They lied to us! They wouldn't use reconciliation for Single Payer or Public Option, but they are prepared to use it to pass the Health Insurance Bail Out the corporate whores in the House and Senate want to unleash on the American people. Frakkers!

Dems threaten to use 51-vote tactic for health bill if they lose in Mass.

By Michael O'Brien - 01/16/10 09:00 AM ET

Democrats are prepared to use a budgetary procedure to pass healthcare reform legislation if they lose a key Senate race on Tuesday, a House leader said this weekend.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the assistant to the Speaker and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said during budget reconciliation is "an option" to pass a healthcare bill.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said during an appearance on Bloomberg television over the weekend.

Budget reconciliation is a procedural rule allowing a bill to pass the Senate with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes usually needed to end debate on any given piece of legislation.

The remark comes before a closer-than-expected Senate race in Massachusetts, where voters head to the polls Tuesday to permanently fill the seat left vacant by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D).

Republican candidate Scott Brown has been waging a potential upset bid against Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley, in part due to his pledge to be the additional vote to be able to sustain a GOP filibuster against Democrats' health bill.

Van Hollen dismissed the specter of a Brown upset, reviving the idea of using budget reconciliation to pass the health bill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/76495-dems-threaten-reconciliation-for-health-bill-if-they-lose-in-mass

[still_one]

1. I don't believe they can use budget reconcilliation for the public option, however, they can use it

for "Medicare for all", since Medicare is already an existing program

[IndianaGreen]

2. HR676, Single Payer, a 15-page long bill was about expanding Medicare

They really wanted this Dead On Arrival.

[democrattotheend]

5. You don't actually think that would happen, do you?

I doubt they have even a simple majority to pass HR676, sadly. It would probably get 25-30 votes in the Senate and maybe 125-150 in the House. I don't dispute that in many ways it's a better solution, but I also know there is no political support for it.

[IndianaGreen]

6. A real leader would take the issue to the country!

There was majority support for a public option that contained Medicare option. Single Payer, Medicare for All, would have been a winner!

[TheWraith]

7. No, it wouldn't.

Don't be daft. Even support for an entirely voluntary public option wobbled ridiculously based on what people thought it was--single payer would not get majority support. And even if 100% of the country were for it, it wouldn't change the votes in the Senate or the House.

[IndianaGreen]

8. You have the President run against the reactionaries in Congress, from both parties!

It would have worked, and it would have been real "Change You Can Believe In!"

[TheWraith]

15. Run against them? What the hell does that mean?

Congress gets elected every two years. Would you rather get nothing done until January 2011 and just randomly hope that the entire political alignment of the country has shifted by the next election?

[Craftsman]

3. If Coakley wins I figure many of the blue dogs in the house will run from HCR

[Little Star]

4. That may very well pose a problem. n/t

[shopgreen]

9. we know it is an option already. this is not news.

[Lord Helmet]

10. "You lie!"

[Yavin4]

11. If They REALLY Cared About Healthcare Reform

They would pass it by any means necessary. Restricting themselves to this 60 vote majority is a fucking joke.

[David Zephyr]

12. It was always a joke, Yavin4.

It was as you say a "fucking joke".

We could have a radical public option if they'd wanted it.

The entire "blame Lieberman" was a cover for their own treachery as I pointed out long ago.

They could do this with 51 votes. They didn't WANT to do it. They wanted to pretend they tried to appease the Left.

[treestar]

17. You really aren't going to bother educating yourself on this, are you?

and just keep repeating inaccurate statements.

[Yavin4]

18. What's Inaccurate About My Statement?

If the Dems cannot pass HCR with a 59-41 majority, then they're not truly serious about HCR.

Even with a Coakley win, chances are pretty high that the Dems will lose their 60 vote majority next year, but still retain overall majority. So, because they don't have 60 votes, does that mean they won't do ANYTHING for two years?

[sabrina 1]

19. I've educated myself on it and I've seen that Bush used

the procedure three times to pass his tax cuts. That's because Republicans really wanted those tax cuts.

The defeatism that has been apparent from the beginning of this from people who will, apparently excuse anything so long as it's a Democrat doing it, is just depressing.

If Democrats had wanted real HEALTH (not insurance) reform they would have fought for it. They NEVER fought for it, they made every excuse they could to try to make it look like it wasn't possible. Not buying it, I never did. They did what the Insurance Companies paid them to do. Why not just admit what happened and then go from there? The constant denying of what is as plain as day, is just a waste of time. The American people get it. They are losing faith in Democrats. The only way to stop a Democratic defeat is to face the problems and fix them. And we can't do that as long as people continue to try to defend the obviously indefensible.

Now, they are willing to use a procedure they said could not be used. But NOT for the benefit of the people. It is to complete the Insurance Bail-out that was the goal along. I know how painful it is to have to admit that we were betrayed. I thought this party represented me and fought and stood up for them for so long, it's hard to not be able to do that anyore. Except for the few who didn't sell their votes.

[David Zephyr]

13. K&R.

.

[golfguru]

14. K&R n/t

[bigdarryl]

16. Mike Malloy was talking about this on his show and he gave a detailed history of this procedure