Kill the bill? Seriously?

[ProSense]

Brown: I'm In

Josh Marshall | December 15, 2009

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says he's in for health care reform, even though his key initiative--the public option--and all of its alternatives, have been swept into the dust bin.

Kill the bill and what: start this process over again with Nelson, Nelson, Landrieu and Lieberman?

Yeah, let's start this grab bag over and hope for a better result. Nelson/Stupak anyone?

How about killing it for good and maintaining the status quo?

The Senate bill is not the final bill. The House bill has a public option.


Oh, and Fuck Lieberman.




Edited to add link.

[Bullet1987]

1. Yes...kill the bill

Get the damn thing right.

[ProSense]

"Get the damn thing right." Who? The 59 uncoordinated Democrats and Lieberman?

Hold your breathe.

[IndianaGreen]

12. We only need 51 votes in reconciliation

[tridim]

20. Apparently none of the current insurance reforms can be included in reconciliation.

That's a deal breaker IMO.

The only reconciliation deal I could go for is Medicare for all, but that wont get 51 votes.

Don't kill the bill. Fix it later, like we did with Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

[Clio the Leo]

53. Bingo. NT

[Garam_Masala]

66. That Won't work because they have made deals with big pharma

and big health insurance. What is left of this bill is what the plan
was all along. They tempted us with PO & Medicare expansion, which now
is obvious was a cruel hoax all along.

The private health care industry is celebrating tonight with $900 Billion
bonanza and no competition from PO and no cost control from Medicare imposed
cost limits. Watch campaign cash roll in now like Niagara Falls.

[Bullet1987]

26. NO! Fight for what you fucking want!!

Expose the assholes for who they are and stop playing footsies with them.

So, to review what's in the Senate *Health Care Reform* bill:


1. No Single Payer

2. No public option

3. No expanded Medicare coverage

4. No drug re-importation

5. No cost controls

6. No renegotiation of drug prices

7. Capped annual coverage for care

8. Individual mandated coverage

9. Anti-trust exemption for insurance companies

10. A tax on middle class insurance plans

11. Taxes that start up in January, but benefits that don’t start until 2014

[ProSense]

29. Again, what are you expecting from Nelson, Nelson, Landrieu and Lieberman.

You can scream until you're blue in the face, but these assholes are not going to change. Another attempt will reset their failed moral compass to try to get to where they originally wanted to go.

[Clio the Leo]

55. RARRRRRRRR!!!!

It feels good to scream, doesn't it?

[Garam_Masala]

83. To that great list add "no importation of cheaper drugs" n/t

[yourout]

2. To me its simply.....No public option then no mandate.

If there is enough left to warrant passing then go for it.

[Strelnikov_]

9. Seconded n/t

[Luciferous]

17. Yep. If they don't give us a public option, they shouldn't

have a mandate.

[LooseWilly]

28. Cheers... abso-fucking-lutely!!

Protect people from being kicked off their insurance all you want... but without a public option, a mandate is a giveaway...

Hell, they want a mandate... mandate that employers provide insurance!!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. I agreed with you until the conference implication

The senate bill is THE bill. The House will defer on all points because the slightest deviation is an invitation to another round of senate conservadem extortion.

IMO.

[ProSense]

4. "The senate bill is THE bill." Nonsense. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. If the senate passes a 60 vote bill...

If the senate passes a 60 vote bill the conference bill will be essentially identical to that bill.

The conference bill faces the same filibuster threshold when it comes back to the senate. It cannot be amended but it requires cloture.

So there is no room for any deviation. The conference bill vote in the senate is a replay of the initial vote.

So no, a PO cannot be added in conference, or anything else that certain senate a-holes won't vote for.

[ProSense]

25. Wrong. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. Oh... well that puts a whole different light on the matter

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Why?

"Conference reports themselves, unlike measures on initial consideration, are not
subject to a double filibuster, because they are privileged matters, so that motions to
proceed to their consideration are not debatable. Inasmuch as conference reports
themselves are debatable, however, it may be found necessary to move for cloture on
a conference report."

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30360.pdf

So Liberman can filibuster the conference report.

[Clio the Leo]

57. So 60 votes are still needed to bring the conferenced bill to the floor for a vote?

That's what I'm confused on.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

63. I believe the answer is yes.

[LooseWilly]

81. That's the impression I've gotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee

"Conference reports are privileged. And in the Senate, a motion to proceed to a conference report is not debatable, although Senators can generally filibuster the conference report itself."

Also... any item that isn't in the bill of one house or the other, which the conference committee tries to add (like the welfare buy in would be with the current permutation of the Senate bill)... can be objected to on some sort of procedural objection... which also requires 60 votes to override.

This shit is dead...

[LooseWilly]

84. No, Kurt_and_Hunter is right by my reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee

"Conference reports are privileged. And in the Senate, a motion to proceed to a conference report is not debatable, although Senators can generally filibuster the conference report itself."

You are wrong... I'm afraid.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. After the conference, can Lieberman filibuster the resulting bill? (nt)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Yes. (See post right above)

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. That's what I expected

(because the filibuster wouldn't be that powerful if that wasn't the case).

[stevietheman]

75. In terms of the lack of public option, it is. n/t

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

5. Kill the bill!

Painful to watch Brown and Harkin trying to defend this POS.

[Parker CA]

6. K&R

[DrToast]

7. There is one benefit to killing the Senate bill

It will force a dysfunctional institution to address its problems. In the long run, that could be worth more than health care reform.

[ProSense]

10. "It will force a dysfunctional institution to address its problems." That's

the best joke of the day. No offense.

[TwilightGardener]

11. The Senate doesn't think it has a problem. The Republicans are finding

it works perfectly for them even as a minority, and the Democrats all have their own thing goin' on and don't really care what passes.

[tridim]

22. It's like we have a 60 seat Senate that requires a 100% vote to pass anything.

That isn't fair, and it certainly isn't democracy.

[PBS Poll-435]

8. K & R

Sadly my rec didn't appear to count.

[OHdem10]

16. Kill the Bill. It is worthless and will hurt more people than it helps.

There is nothing Democratic about this gutted shell.

[quiller4]

33. That simply is not true. It will provide subsidized health care for those who need it most.

[OHdem10]

36. I have seen this before--only the poorest of the Poor.

Republicans will take care of the poorest of the poor.

[Clio the Leo]

59. Pity how Democrats are now acting like Republicans...

"ME! ME! ME!!! I dont care if it helps someone else, it has to benefit ME!!!!"

[Pab Sungenis]

71. How?

With no price controls, no Medicare buy-in, and no public option?

[LooseWilly]

85. I have no health insurance... and I say kill the bill.

I don't trust the subsidizations or their funding, and subsidizing mandated purchasing of private health insurance is a cost-ineffective means of providing health care which will quickly provide rhetorical ammunition for the elimination of subsidies (as being too expensive) while the mandates will become all too comfortable for the politicians who don't have to pay out of their own pockets to cover their own insurance.

The next Republican administration will find a ready audience looking to eliminate the subsidies for health insurance for those of us who aren't "earning our own coverage"... and the self-employed/independent contractors/under employed will provide the Republicans with a new "Welfare Cadillac Moms" mantra to rally in opposition to... which, given the Democratic Party track record... the Democrats will quickly back pedal away from in order to not seem to be "too liberal for the Centrists they want to attract the votes of"...

It's bad. It's all bad. Fuck it... kill the bill, and let me die knowing that I didn't waste any money on the crooked-ass Health Insurance Industry.

[dave29]

18. Pro, even I am wavering on this.

I do not delight in it as I want so very badly for reform to pass. There is good in this bill, sure, but it is starting to get to the point where I can suffer no more punches from the right while trying to hold off those from the left. I would seriously like the opportunity to punch Lieberman in the face.

I am a long time Dean supporter and his opinion matters to me. A lot. He is a doctor, for God's sake. He got us to where we are today. And now we are being held hostage by Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, and are being treated to the spectacle of Mary Landrieu coming out in full support of the bill..... tonight. Whatever. I do not like watching the Center relish in winning this debate nor do I like watching our good soldiers taking a hit for the team when they should not have to. We are watching our best and brightest getting walked all over, and it's a shame.

And no, for those of you reveling in my torment on this, I do not blame Obama. I blame Democrats in general for being so goddamned stubborn and entrenched. That goes for left/center whatever you think you are. Nobody is going to win here, and we will have ourselves to blame. Point the fingers all you want folks, but look in the mirror, and prepare for President Romney.

God damn this mess.

[Clio the Leo]

46. And how many years did he spend in the Senate?

Which is not to discount his knowledge on health care, I concede he knows more about it than I do.

But my money is still on the former Foreign Relations Committee Chair and the Junior Senator from Illinois.



(and the plethora of progressive seated Senators who are fervently urging for this bills passage.)

[dave29]

49. I trust them, I do. I also trust Howard.

Do not forget Dr. Dean made healthcare work in Vermont when he was Gov. He passed a civil unions law that was unpopular -- he had to wear a bullet proof vest for some time. That was before he woke up the base in 2004, and wound up leading the party to victories in 2006 and 2008.

His resume is not too shabby either. These guys all know what they are doing, they just don't happen to be agreeing right now.

Which is why I have a headache

[Clio the Leo]

51. lol, I bet. NT

[Laelth]

60. I do blame Obama.

I see Rahm's fingerprints all over this mess. I think the President has been in complete control of the process from top to bottom.

I am very disappointed in him.

:dem:

-Laelth

[AllentownJake]

19. A combined bill needs to pass both houses of congress

The public option is dead. Kill the Bill.

[Clio the Leo]

21. Fortunately or Not, Howard doesn't have a vote.

He wasn't able to pursuade Lieberman and Nelson.... will he be able to change Sherrod's mind?

[dave29]

only Nelson and Lieberman can persuade Nelson and Lieberman

I think that's pretty clear at this point.

[Clio the Leo]

31. I'm glad someone FINALLY sees the President was up against. ;-) NT

[dave29]

37. heh. It's not just the President... it's all of us.

and we are screwn.

[Clio the Leo]

42. ehhh ......... see me this time next year about that. NT

[provis99]

23. this bill is WORSE than the status quo. Kill it.

[Armstead]

24. How about at least killing the goddamn mandate?

I could accept the loss of the good -- but not the imposition of a ciorporate sgtranglehold on everyone through this goddamn mandate for private insurance.

They should abide by that oath "First do no harm."

[LooseWilly]

30. Lieberman can filibuster a conference report, too... so any conference changes will need his ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee

"Conference reports are privileged. And in the Senate, a motion to proceed to a conference report is not debatable, although Senators can generally filibuster the conference report itself."

Pull the mandate, change the mandate from consumers to employers, or kill the fucking bill.

(Or make the Republicans really filibuster... in front of cameras...)

[ProSense]

38. You forgot this part

Conference reports are privileged. And in the Senate, a motion to proceed to a conference report is not debatable, although Senators can generally filibuster the conference report itself. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 limits debate on conference reports on budget resolutions and budget reconciliation bills to 10 hours in the Senate, so Senators cannot filibuster those conference reports.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

41. That would be useful if we were talking about a budget resolution

If this was a budget resolution we wouldn't be talking about any of this in the first place.

The rule you cite applies to bills that would be handled under the reconciliation process anyway, so has nothing to do with the topic.

[ProSense]

43. I guess you missed the fact that

the Senate agreed to by vote to pass health care under budget reconciliation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. You guess correctly

I was not aware of that wrinkle

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

48. PS You should make that an OP

If the version that comes back from conference really cannot be filibustered in the senate (for more than a brief delay) it is something folks should know.

[ProSense]

50. Details

here

In 2007, Orszag made the case in a piece about health care and the budget.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

62. Thank you, but I don't think that is applicable to the topic at hand

What you are referring to is language that could facilitate movement of a bill under reconciliation rules if we decided to go that route.

But that doesn't affect the current bill, the one we are discussing, which is not operating under reconciliation rules. (If it were it wouldn't be filibuster-able right now either.)

The conference bill we are talking about--the fruit of what the House passed and whatever the senate will pass--would be under regular rules. So it can be filibustered in the regular way.

But I take the information as having been offered in good faith, and appreciate it.

[ProSense]

68. People are confused.

Recurring Question Department: Can you filibuster a conference report?

The chances of a conference report being filibustered are slim to none

It will be voted on in whatever form it exists. The reconciliation process is applicable to the conference report.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

72. I think your first link there is on point

A conference product can be filibustered.

Confusion arises from the fact that the conference process is a process of reconciliation, and but that's not the same thing as the special budget reconciliation rules.

The conference product of the bill currently being considered in the senate would be filibuster-able.

If we invoke reconciliation rules to pursue a bill (which we have not) then neither the initial vote of the vote on conference product could be filibustered.

[ProSense]

73. The can be, but rarely are and

health care reform is subject to budget reconciliation.

[grantcart]

77. Wrong

You can't filibuster it getting on the floor and you can't filibuster it going to committee. You can absolutely filibuster it coming back out of the Senate committee for final vote.

[Clio the Leo]

64. So it turns out that your cut and paste OPs contain USEFUL INFORMATION...

.... why am I having the feeling that you and I were the only ones that knew this?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8629168


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8689399

[LooseWilly]

65. When did the Senate agree to that?

All the shit (and I mean that as a metaphor, rather than just a colloquial substitute for a more specific noun) that's left in the Senate bill is barred from being included (as I understand it) in a reconciliation bill.

The end to recission can not be included in reconciliation. The end of denial for pre-existing conditions can not be included in reconciliation. The mandate can not be included in reconciliation. (Although, I believe extending Medicare availability to everyone IS able to be included in reconciliation.)

Where did you hear this about reconciliation?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

67. It's a misreading of something

The budget included language facilitating taking up HCR as reconciliation but that option has not been invoked or pursued.

We are currently operating under regular senate rules.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Yes! 100% Serious. eom

[jefferson_dem]

35. "KILL THE BILL"

Is exactly what the teabaggers were chanting today on Capitol Hill. :puke:

[PBS Poll-435]

39. Yep

Weirdness.

[depakid]

44. Cruious, isn't it

every 12 hours, a broken clock is shows the right time.

[rvablue]

47. I guess you have affordable health care already.

Some don't.

Some need the public option.

Some are sick and tired of filling the coffers and shareholders pockets of private companies in order to see a doctor.

Yes, if there is no PO, the bill needs to be vetoed. Doesn't look like there are any price controls, either.

[ProSense]

52. "Some don't." And they will get it by killing the bill? n/t

[mcablue]

54. Does this mean you'll be disappointed if there's no Public Option at the end?

You provide us with comfort by noting that the public option still exists in the House bill. But why do I suspect that you will not complain about the final bill even if it lacks one?

[ProSense]

56. Yes, but

not as disappointed as those advocating for the death of the bill as a means to provide health coverage for the millions of uninsured.

Kill the bill = the unisured are better off?

[Laelth]

58. Yes, seriously. Kill the bill.

California will pass single-payer on its own in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The legislature has already passed the bill. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ProSense]

61. "California will pass single-payer on its own in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor."

Bully for California. What about the rest of the country?

[Oregone]

69. How is California going to fund single-payer on their own?

Seriously. Their budget is a mess. Without a ton of federal money subsidizing the system, wont it substantially raise taxes in a state where people complain enough about taxes?

[Laelth]

74. They have had no trouble selling bonds.

They do have trouble raising taxes, admittedly, but they have had no trouble selling bonds.

It'll be a whole different ballgame with a Democratic Governor.

:dem:

-Laelth

[eridani]

87. With the premiums that are now being paid to useless shitstain intermediaries n/t

[Garam_Masala]

78. California is in worse financial shape than most other states

Is this a joke? Where the heck will they get the money?
They can't print it unlike the federal gov't. CA bond
ratings are in the dumpster and no one wants to loan them
more money.

[Laelth]

80. As I said above, California has had no trouble selling bonds.

It's hard to raise taxes in California, admittedly, but they could institute a single-payer system with further deficit spending.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Garam_Masala]

82. Just that they have to pay higher interest on bonds due to downgrades

on CA's credit rating. Of course they can sell all the bonds they
want if they want to pay 10-12-14% interest rates.

[BlueIdaho]

70. Yes - kill it dead

A bill that delivers the poorest Americans to the insurance industry in a mandate - something Obama campaigned against, raises taxes, adds to the debt, and does nothing to provide competition or control costs is not Change We Can Believe In.

[Garam_Masala]

79. Very well said n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

89. couldn't have said it better - it is forced servitude to corporate stockholders

I am praying there are enough smart Senators who know the score to kill this thing. Dead.

And then we can get to the business of running some new candidates against all those who slowed it and stopped it.

[Honeycombe8]

76. Sadly...the bill needs to be killed. It is harmful. nt

[lamp_shade]

86. K&R

[DCBob]

88. Start the process over and we probably end up at the same place. Dumb..

This bill is better than the status quo and there will still be an opportunity to improve it during conference.