Why is the lie that we needed 60 votes to pass a public option so widely accepted here?

[no limit]

They didn't need 60 votes, they needed 50 plus Joe Biden. I am so sick of hearing excuses for why the public option didn't pass, all the excuses that were given to us at the time and are given to us today are false.

During the debate at the time we were told we can't use reconciliation at all, because that would shut down the senate. Then when we had to use reconciliation because Scott Brown got elected we were told the house couldn't add a public option because to do that they would have to send it back to the senate for another vote. Yet because of a small technicality it turned out the bill still had to go back to the senate anyway. So they changed the excuse again to not wanting to kick up any dust about this issue and leave it out.

The simple fact is that they had the votes, they simply didn't want a public option. No amount of blue links here will change this history. And the people that keep repeating this lie either weren't paying attention, don't remember the process from a year and a half ago, or they are outright lying hoping nobody will notice.

[Broderick]

1. K and R

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[durablend]

3. Gee gosh golly

The president is doing the best job he can with all these mean nasty Republicans around!

:sarcasm:

[KansDem]

4. I thought it had something to do with a threatened filibuster...

60 votes to close off debate, but then, I'm no Constitutional scholar...

[no limit]

6. Reconciliation avoids the filibuster completely. It only needs 50 votes plus Joe Biden

[KansDem]

14. "Reconciliation"

Ah, yes! I remember that term now. And why the Dems could have passed real health-care reform!

Thanks! :hi:

[TheWraith]

5. Because the public option COULD NOT BE PASSED BY RECONCILIATION.

What CAN be passed by reconciliation is extremely limited, specifically to prevent bypassing the filibuster.

[no limit]

7. Really? Then how did COBRA and SCHIP get passed using reconciliation?

[BzaDem]

91. See post 89.

[no limit]

103. I did. Show me one source that claims they had to overwrite the Byrd rule.

[BzaDem]

114. You don't need to override the Byrd rule if not a single Senator makes a point of order.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/03/why-public-option-is-not-like-schip-and.html

[no limit]

117. Let's say for the sake of the argument the senate parliamentarian rules you can't do it

as your own link says they only need 50 votes to over-rule that decision since the presiding officer, Biden in this case, doesn't actually have to follow the advice of the parliamentarian. Your link says the only reason this can't happen is because the Republicans would be upset. Whoop-dee fucking do, so what?

[BzaDem]

130. That would be equivalent to nuking the filibuster. While there are good arguments for and against

nuking the filibuster (just in terms of the goal of maximizing progressive policy and minimizing conservative policy), that is an entirely different question. Once the precedent is set that reconciliation can include anything, there is no more filibuster, so that is a separate topic.

This thread is not about nuking the filibuster. This thread is about whether the public option can pass under reconciliation, under the current rules of reconciliation and the filibuster. You not only claim it can -- you say that anyone who says otherwise is lying. Yet as the article clearly shows, it is you that is posting information that is false.

[no limit]

131. So it was possible to get around the filibuster.

I never agreed that the public option can't be passed using reconciliation. People like Bernie Sanders, Harry Reid, among others agree that it could have been. Even the author of your article says he isn't 100% sure that it couldn't have been.

Yet the president refused to even try. Even if he failed they could have just sent the bill back without it, as happened anyway in the case of pell grants. But for whatever reasons they refused to try and never actually explained why.

There were many ways to have had the public option passed. Anyone saying that it could only have been done with 60 votes is telling a lie. That lie may or may not be intentional, but it is a lie.

[BzaDem]

132. As I said, it is hillarious that someone who is blatantly wrong is actually telling OTHERS that they

are lying.

You can continue your game of wish and pretend, and design an alternate reality where the public option can pass under reconciliation (as you argued in your OP and are still arguing now, despite seeing why it is completely false). Similarly, others can construct an alternate reality where we never went to the moon and the planet was established 6000 years ago. But even I generally don't call them liars, mostly because I feel sorry for them. To lie, someone has to know what they are saying is false, and amazingly, some of these people actually believe the blatant nonsense they are articulating.

[Sheepshank]

133. The are counting on short term memory to pass off the "Reconciliation would have worked", lie.n/t

[BzaDem]

134. All of the alternate realities rely on short term memories. It's so easy to say things like

"it could have passed if we just willed it into law" or "Bush got everything he wanted" or "Obama never advocated for the public option," since there are enough people that will happily swallow it if it conforms to the narrative they wish to spread.

[no limit]

138. You are the one deciding to live in an alternate reality

the reality being that this president and his party has our best interests in mind. They do not. But since you really want to live in that world you make excuse after excuse and when reality hits you in the face you simply ignore it and pretend it didn't happen.

What was the harm in adding a public option to the reconciliation bill to see if it can be passed? Why are we still being spied on no different from how Bush was doing it? Why do we still participate in rendition to countries that torture? Why did so many Democrats go along with Bush when it came to wars and "national security"?

For you to be accusing other people of living in an alternate reality is laughable.

[no limit]

135. Was Harry Reid an idot for saying he would push for the public option in reconciliation?

What was the harm in trying?

You are the one that isn't addressing what I am saying. You can find this as hilarious as you want, but until you start addressing my points it's clear you have no argument. There is this crazy concept in a discussion such as this one where you actually address what the other person has to say.

[joeybee12]

9. FAIL!

FAIL, FAIL, FAIL!

[Maven]

29. WRONG

[Lord Helmet]

35. 60 votes needed to break the filibuster and then only 51 votes needed to pass the bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1937641&mesg_id=1938298

[no limit]

40. This is completely not true, you don't understand the reconciliation process

[Lord Helmet]

42. Barney Frank says its true. I consider him a better source than DU pundits.

see video I posted below in thread

[no limit]

46. Show me where Barney Frank said you need 60 votes to use reconciliation

then show me where he said passing a public option wasn't possible using reconciliation.

I look forward to you finding these statements you seem to be sure he made.

[Lord Helmet]

50. He apparently doesn't think this could have been passed by reconciliation.

I have posted his comments and a video below. I understand you disagree with him but Barney Frank is the expert on this, not DU pundits who obviously want to lay blame at the presidents feet.

[no limit]

52. The comments you posted have him saying "the president didnt have the votes"

he said nothing about reconciliation.

Why Barney Frank said that when he is perfectly aware of reconciliation I'm not sure about. But unfortunately Barney Frank is not here to talk to me about this, you are. So do you personally have anything intelligent to add to this discussion or not?

SCHIP and COBRA, both healthcare programs, were passed using reconciliation which only requires 50 votes + Joe Biden. So why do you think they didn't have the votes? And more importantly why did you say this requires 60 votes?

[Lord Helmet]

55. Frank doesn't think this could have been passed by reconciliation. You do.

I think Frank knows what he's talking about on this.

[no limit]

57. It's like I'm talking to a robot. Where does Frank say you can't use reconciliation

This is what he said:

Frank: Look, I sympathize with President Obama. He`s been criticized by some of my liberal friends. We didn`t get a public option and we didn`t get the other things we wanted. That wasn`t his fault. The economic recovery bill, the stimulus -- it wasn`t as big as it should have been. That wasn`t his fault. He couldn`t get the votes.

Where is the word reconciliation in there?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

59. Really? It's inferred? According to who? You? Let's pretend for a sec what you inferred is correct

Explain to me why SCHIP and COBRA were able to pass using reconciliation which only required 50 votes plus Biden?

[Lord Helmet]

60. If you dispute his statements on this, ask him. He's the expert on process, not you.

[no limit]

62. Yeah, let me get Bernie on the phone real quick. I'll let you know what he says

but it's nice that you get to infer things that are never said and then use what you inferred as evidance for your false argument.

Also, see #65. You might like it.

[no limit]

63. Sanders: Senate has the votes to pass public option via reconciliation

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation

[rainy]

124. from what I remember, they didn't have enough dem

votes to get it out of comity. That's what Frank was saying. Blue dogs were not going to give the Dems the majority on public option.

[no limit]

137. You didn't need a committee. The house could have added it and it would be on the senate floor

for an up or down vote requiring a simple majority.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. To clarify - are you saying the process of reconciliation was wrong for this vote,

or the the vote would not have gotten the 50 votes to pass under reconciliation?

[BzaDem]

89. SCHIP and COBRA were both bipartisan programs. ANYTHING can pass by reconciliation if you have 60

votes to override Byrd rule points of order (or if the legislation is sufficiently bipartisan that there are no Byrd rule points of order).

[no limit]

101. Show me the vote where they bypassed the Byrd rule.

[BzaDem]

113. The original SCHIP passed under UNANIMOUS CONSENT, and the original COBRA passed 93-6. There were no

Byrd rule points of order because basically no one opposed either bill. It takes a Senator to file a point of order -- the rule is not self-enforcing.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/03/why-public-option-is-not-like-schip-and.html

[pasto76]

120. reconciliation requires cooperation from both sides

[no limit]

136. No, it does not.

If you want a more detailed response from me maybe you should provide more detail as to why you are making this claim.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

65. If it relates to the budget it could have been passed that way.

Where there is will, there is a way. There was no will, that became clear. There was a deal and the PO was not part of it.

What amazes me is how all the tools the president has to overcome opposition on important matters, suddenly stopped working right after Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress and the WH.

When all you hear are excuses, eventually you realize that there is no will to do certain things.

The Third Way is perfectly happy with the Health Insurance Reform Bill.

They did use Reconciliation when it was something they wanted though.

You know what? I just wish they would be honest. It's the constant excuses that bother people the most. Tell the truth, and then let people decide. The end result would be the same. Those who will blindly support their party no matter what, will still do so. Those who care about issues, will remain opposed to rightwing ideas. But at least we would not have to deal with the excuses.

[BzaDem]

92. "Where there is will, there is a way." More bogus magical thinking.

Something can't just "relate to the budget." It can ONLY relate to the budget.

"You know what? I just wish they would be honest." While I am not going to accuse you of being dishonest (like the OP is fond of doing to others), because you apparently actually believe what you are saying, I DO wish people would read facts and inform themselves.

[sabrina 1]

139. Really? I'm glad FDR and LBJ were magical

thinkers or millions of Americans would have died of poverty and lack of medical care. Millions more would still not have equal rights. There is never a good time to do what is right. But if it's right it's worth fighting for.

I am fully aware that of how reconciliation works. Interesting that they used it later, when they really wanted something. The magical thinking it appears, is not on my part, it is those who think that there was any fight for them going on, who are the magical thinkers.

[MH1]

127. Wait, you mean we couldn't just get SINGLE-PAYER by reconciliation?

Crap, here all this time I've been thinking DU is infested by conservatives because all I see is 'public option, public option, pass public option by reconciliation' - when the actual LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE position is SINGLE-PAYER and if we could get ANY DAMN THING WE WANT WITH RECONCILIATION then why the f**k are we talking about public option in the first place??

But gee your saying we CAN'T get any damn thing we want by reconciliation? Aw sheesh what a spoil sport you are.




do i really need - :sarcasm:

[Harmony Blue]

8. Because people want to cling to something

in the face of an implosion.

Kick and rec! :dem:

[SixthSense]

10. Senatorial privilege was more important

thus they choose to preserve the 60 vote threshold rather than have things pass by majority vote

[no limit]

11. I'm not sure I understand your point? They didn't preserve the 60 vote threshold

they used reconciliation.

[sufrommich]

12. They would have needed 60 votes to beat the

filibuster that the GOP promised if the bill made it to the senate. If the bill could have made it past the filibuster vote, then it could have passed with 51 votes. That's the way I remember it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harmony Blue]

15. Don't give up

it just takes time for people to understand how our government works and the mechanisms available. Keep at it with the truth as the MSM has masterfully confused the general populace.

[LondonReign2]

16. I've been informed here in DU that it's all the Liberals' fault

See, we just didn't want it *bad enough*, so poor ol' helpless Barack was forced to cut it.
:eyes:

[tblue]

17. There was no will so there was no way.

Cognitive dissonance and a "halo effect"' make for rationalization. But the folks who could have gotten us a public option just didn't want it bad enough.

Good thoughtful post!

[Dragonfli]

18. Willful Ignorance? Propaganda? A need to Justify the lack of a public option at all costs?

A need to justify adopting the Heritage foundation mandated health care plan without admitting the POTUS wanted it that way.

Possibly as many reasons as there are people that don't want anyone to criticize the POTUS for his Insurance company profit based adopted Republican plan I suppose, and then there are those that believe them when they lie about it and think it is a fact.

[elocs]

19. Did you do any research about this? From a simple google search:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/11/24/reconciliation

But as with so much in politics, especially when it comes to Senate procedure, things are not nearly so simple. In fact, if Reid did try using reconciliation, he could end up having to remove key parts of the legislation, not to mention hurting his party politically and losing an extra couple of votes in the Senate -- and, having done all that, he might well find out that he still needed 60 votes in order to get a public option approved.

Reid has ruled out the idea for now, saying last week, "I'm not using reconciliation." And other senators, like Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, agree with their leader, believing the procedure would end up doing more harm than good. An aide to a senior Democrat, who asked for anonymity in order to discuss the issue more freely, told Salon, "This isn't like a two-week delay, or a three-week delay. This fundamentally changes what we have promised to the American people, and it's risky, and I'm not talking about a little bit of fucking risk, I'm talking about a lot of risk ... It puts universal coverage at risk ... risks allowing insurance companies to discriminate against those with preexisting conditions."

And of those pushing for the use of reconciliation, the aide concluded, "A bunch of people that watched 'Schoolhouse Rock' growing up think that they understand how the Senate works, and they don’t."

The problem is that budget reconciliation isn't really supposed to be used to make policy. Instead, as the Congressional Research Service's Robert Keith said in a 2008 report, reconciliation "is a procedure ... by which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue programs." In the procedure's early years, however, it was used to circumvent the filibuster on provisions unrelated to that purpose. So in the 1980s, then-Minority Leader Robert Byrd led the Senate in a crackdown. What resulted was the Byrd Rule, which prohibits the Senate "from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill."

There is more at the link, but unfortunately it does not fit in well with your rant. Things are not always as simple as we pretend them to be.

[Dawgs]

21. The only thing I get from your link is that Democrats are weak. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

23. Basically

the Democrats refused to take a calculated risk, which in my opinion, was worth taking given the momentum they had at the time.

[Dawgs]

27. Also noticed that referenced article was written months before the it passed through reconciliation.

It doesn't really address the OP.

[elocs]

28. That certainly is a much easier tact than addressing any of the points.

The bottom line is that it was not as simple as you made it out to be. I provided a link to prove my point, where are your links? :shrug:

[no limit]

30. I'm not understanding what this article has to do with my OP, maybe you can clarify?

It doesn't explain why Reid would have to get 60 votes. I specifically was talking about the house adding it before it got sent back to the senate. He would only need 50.

The Byrd rule it references is also a false argument. SCHIP and COBRA were passed using reconciliation. They could have easily pulled some tricks to make sure a public option fit the Byrd rule.

Everything else you quoted talks about political risk. Would there have been some political risk? Sure. But I think that risk would have been minor. 41 senators were on record saying they would support the public option. The democrats had 58 senators total. No way in hell they wouldn't have found 9 votes for their president's most important policy decision.

So again, I really don't see what this has to do with my OP, and if I missed any of your points my apologies, point it out and I will address it.

[elocs]

34. The bottom line is that from the beginning they could not pass the original bill

with everything in it using reconciliation. Remember how to get even what was passed done how things had to be changed concerning passing the bill by reconciliation? The original bill never would have gotten through unchanged and with everything in it that people wanted using reconciliation.

[no limit]

38. You say that is the bottom line but you aren't explaining why

all Pelosi had to do was add the public option to the reconciliation bill before it went back to the senate. It would have then gotten an up or down vote on the senate floor. So I'm not understanding why you say it would have been impossible to do this.

[Dawgs]

20. I heard that Lieberman had more power than the President or anyone else in Congress.

;-)

[msongs]

22. first of all you have to want the public option and stand up against republicans nt

[robdogbucky]

24. Why did they agree to adjourn for the month of August?

Why didn't they force a vote when we had a chance?

Why were the corporations allowed to muster up the Bagger movement at those town halls, thereby giving cover to those that didn't want to pass single payer but had to posture like they did?

Curious minds want to know the multi-dimensional chess advantage this move allowed.

[boston bean]

125. I have always wondered this myself. Dems were sent to slaughter with no direction

and nothing to really talk to their constituents about that summer.

They were hounded by teabaggers and from there we ended up with a teapublican congress.

[Starry Messenger]

25. Because if it were acknowledged that our system has that kind of power

then they'd have to take responsibility for doing all kinds of other things we want that they don't want to do.

[Shagbark Hickory]

26. The last reason they gave for this was because it was a budget issue or something like that.

It was probably bullshit.

[no limit]

31. Yeah, with COBRA and SCHIP being passed using the same process this excuse is BS

[BzaDem]

93. If you don't get the differences between COBRA/SCHIP and this, that is YOUR problem (not thiers). nt

[elocs]

32. The final paragraph of the link tells a true story about what happened with reconciliation,

for those who could not be bothered to read that far:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/11/24/reconciliation

Ultimately, passing a reform bill with reconciliation is "feasible," Dove says, but the resulting legislation "would not be pretty, and it couldn't contain a lot of things that people want to be in it."

Reconciliation did not in the end contain a lot of things that people wanted to be in the bill, but it is easier to believe otherwise, that they simply could have passed it from the beginning with everything left in it using reconciliation.

[Lord Helmet]

33. 60 votes needed on procedural vote to break the filibuster, then only 51 votes needed to pass it.

Frank: Public option doesn't need 60 votes*
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63481-frank-public-option-doesnt-need-60-votes
By Eric Zimmermann

The public option doesn't necessarily need 60 votes to pass, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) reminded us this week.

The Senate requires 60 votes to end debate and proceed to vote on a bill, but only a simple majority to actually pass.

"It is conceivable that some Democrats, for example, would vote to break the filiubuster who would then vote against the bill," Frank told Joy Behar on Headline News. "There may be some Democrats willing to do that."

So is that a conceivable scenario?

Based on this interview with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), the answer seems to be yes.

Asked whether any Democrats would vote to uphold a filibuster, Pryor seemed skeptical.

"I don’t want to say no, there's no chance, because something could be added that could just be completely objectionable," he said. "But I don’t think you’ll see me or any other Democrats do that."

"The simple fact is that they had the votes, they simply didn't want a public option. No amount of blue links here will change this history. And the people that keep repeating this lie either weren't paying attention, don't remember the process from a year and a half ago, or they are outright lying hoping nobody will notice." = bullshit

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lord Helmet]

41. I'm pretty sure Barney Frank knows what he's talking about on this.

see the video I posted below

[no limit]

44. If Barney Frank had said you need 60 votes to pass a bill using reconciliation...

you are right, he wouldn't know what he was talking about. But that's not what he said.

You said they needed 60 votes. This is flat out incorrect. In the reconciliation process they only needed 50 + Joe Biden.

Whatever Barney Frank said about why the public option wasn't passed might be interesting. But he is not here for the discussion. You are. So let me know why you said they needed 60 votes when that is clearly not true.

[Lord Helmet]

Believe what you want. I believe Barney Frank on this.

He doesn't think this could be passed by reconciliation. You do.

Push comes to shove I believe Barney Frank.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lord Helmet]

56. Again believe what you want. I believe Barney Frank on this. He knows what he's talking about.

You not so much.

[no limit]

68. Sanders: Senate has the votes to pass public option via reconciliation

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation

[Kermitt Gribble]

36. Smoke and mirrors..

What does Russ Feingold think of the final bill:

"It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise... President Barack Obama...could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation. This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

[Lord Helmet]

37. Barney Frank: Not president's fault on public option (see video)

Frank: Look, I sympathize with President Obama. He`s been criticized by some of my liberal friends. We didn`t get a public option and we didn`t get the other things we wanted. That wasn`t his fault. The economic recovery bill, the stimulus -- it wasn`t as big as it should have been. That wasn`t his fault. He couldn`t get the votes.

video here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/02/880963/-Barney-Frank-Backs-Obama-on-Public-Option-Myth

[no limit]

43. Self-delete: wrong reply. Im moving this reply to you above.

[Lord Helmet]

47. Apparently he doesn't think this could have been passed as reconciliation.

He says 60 votes needed to break the filibuster, then simple majority to pass it.

Now I get some DU pundits think he's incorrect but I consider him an expert over people here misstating facts for the sole purpose of leaving this at the presidents feet.

[no limit]

48. Where did he say this?

[no limit]

64. Sanders: Senate has the votes to pass public option via reconciliation

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation

[Kermitt Gribble]

74. Who appointed Max Baucus, again??

The motives were clear from that appointment, alone.

[Enthusiast]

107. Just as other appointments have been revealing.

There have just been too many wrong appointments to chalk it up to attempts at bipartisanship, fairness or coincidence.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

51. The Republicans could have been but were not forced to engage in a real filibuster.

With the agreement of Senator Reid, Republicans were permitted to engage in a phantom "procedural filibuster". Reid could have forced the Republicans to engage in a real filibusters by withdrawing his ruling that permitted Senate debate and consideration of other legislation during such pretend bogus filibusters.

One time Senator Reid even did in fact force Republicans to engage in a real filibuster on the Senate floor. The Republicans folded in less than 24 hours!

This has all been reported many times on DU.

[no limit]

53. Right, but this has nothing to do with the filibuster. They had no way to filibuster reconciliation

[Better Believe It]

66. That's true.

[0rganism]

61. people hollering "filibuster" better watch what happens in 2013

when the Republicans have the senate majority again. Think they'll let the 60 votes thing get in their way? Hell, even money they strip it out of the rules for the 113th congress entirely.

Even if the filibuster remains, the Democratic minority will be so cowed, it won't even dare filibuster more than a handful of bills. And every bit of that filibustered legislation will end up riding in on some other piece of necessary legislative action: defense authorization bills, debt ceiling increases, use your imagination.

Republicans may say they hate government, and their policies are invariably aimed at producing the worst government possible, but they know how to bring the hammer down and ram through an agenda. And Americans, stupid motherfuckers that we are, respect that kind of decisive action. At this rate, Democratic waffling will do its part to land us in the minority for the next 20 years.

[hulka38]

86. +1

More truth.

[Claudia Jones]

67. Democrats prefer to lose

Democratic party politicians are in an unenviable position. They must convince people that they are fighting for the everyday working class people while they are actually working for the wealthy few. This is a delicate balancing act. When they gain power, as in 2006 and 2008, they have an enormous problem because people have an expectation that they will actually do something to benefit the working class people. Convoluted and improbable excuses and rationales must be concocted lest people see through the ruse. Of course, part of the game is denying that any of this is going on. It was remarkable to see the relief - almost glee - among party politicians, flacks and liberal pundits after the 2010 drubbing. They paid lip service to being unhappy over the results, yes. But they were very happy to be back in their comfort zone and go back to pointing the finger at the Republicans and claiming impotence and to blaming the general public for the state of the country.

[U4ikLefty]

84. +1000

[disillusioned73]

100. Ding!!

:dem:

This whole process opened my eyes to this very disheartening reality.. the kabuki is in full effect!

We need more REAL liberals, not corporate blue dogs/Dems..

[One_Life_To_Give]

69. Insurance Co's wouldn't like tampering with their legislation nt

[truedelphi]

70. Four reasons:

The Powers that Be (And this includes Diane Feinstein) are interested only in making money for the Corporatocracy, and if we had a public option, then the Big Insurers would be left on the side of the road. The Elite managing our governing don't care at all about people's needs or their health (or health care) either.

Second reason: The control of the Democratic Party by those at the top ensures that only those persons who are willing to go all out for Big Industry will get into higher places of elected office. And there are few industries as big as Health Insurers or Big Pharma.

Third reason: The talking points that some 23% of all Americans were willing to follow, and to insist that others follow. Those of us trying to explain that it was possible were told that public option was a mere pony that some of us "spoiled brats" expected a "President under siege" to somehow deal with accomplishing the "impossible."

Four reasons, and the saddest of all: A Prresident who had run as a progressive, and campaigned with ardent desire to bring about "Change" and "Hope." Yet he somehow forgot those principles the second he was elected. By end of Nov 2008, that man was telling Sixty Minutes that "Hank is doing a great job." Hank being Paulson.

His appointments were all about Big Indutry and his "good buddy" Rahm Emanuel was very closely tied to the Health Care Industry. Both men allowed meetings at the WH and down the street from the WH to merrily go along, seeing to it that their friends in the Big Insurers and Big Pharma were able to help design the HC "Reform" package.

[Enthusiast]

108. Thanks for the truth.

Pure truth. No truthiness allowed.

[JoePhilly]

71. You are totally wrong.

You need to follow the full history.

The Senate passed one version of the bill, the House passed another that was based on the Senate version, with some changes from the HOUSE.

The Senate could do a reconciliation vote (simple majority) only if they added NO NEW CHANGES to what the House was able to pass. That House bill had NO PO, and the Senate could not add one because if the Senate added additional changes, then you go back to the 60 vote rule.

Bottom line, the House bill had no PO, and the Senate could not add one. So why did the House bill have no PO????

Here is what Nancy said at the time ...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/86447-pelosi-public-option-will-not-be-in-health-bill

Notice that this article points out there were not 50 votes to SUPPORT a PO in the Senate. So Nancy dropped it so that the rest could pass, UNCHANGED in the Senate.

This is the "simple fact".

[Papa]

72. This is basically exactly as i remember it also

Some other comments here I read are revisionist history fucking bullshit. I was watching very closely at the time and it's like they kept on moving the goal line when the PO wouldn't just DIE! Excuse after excuse. With a modicum of leadership, this would have passed but they simply did not want to pass it. It struck home to me that our President wasn't really one of us, as I had hoped and thought. I still hold out hope, but on the big issues that really matter it's one disappointment after the other.

[Poll_Blind]

87. ^ This

Nothing wrong with your memory at all, Papa.

PB

[midnight]

73. Corporations do not want a healthy citizenry...

We should not have to have our health care decisions made by corporations who hire attorneys that show them how to block access to the health care that our elected officials have....

[slay]

75. Because of all the Dem apologists

they are easily identifiable at this point. they make excuses why the Dems don't get shit done - i think some are paid to do so. they provide cover for Dems that have betrayed us. most of us have seen through it now though.

[soryang]

76. Budget Reform Act of 2011 sets aside cloture rule

When the president wants to cut medicare and social security to please his Chicago School masters, he easily has the Congress set aside the cloture rule. The outrageous cuts to social security and medicare will be passed with 51 votes no problem. Why not the 60 vote excuses and rationalizations here when the democratic party is betraying the heritage of the democratic party? They simply set those rules aside as if they were of no import whatever.

[BzaDem]

94. Believe it or not, a bipartisan bill that passes with a vast majority can set aside the rules.

A partisan sub-60-vote majority on the other hand cannot.

This is not difficult.

[soryang]

140. Actually, we don't know the content of the bill

...so the rules were set aside for an "austerity" program with medicare and social security on the table without knowing what the pertinent provisions of the bill would be, except that they would fulfill a Chicago School Friedmanite agenda. So we don't really know that the bill proposed will have bipartisan support, we only know that the rules were set aside for a rightward agenda by the Democratic party. In fact, setting aside the rules anticipates that the future proposed bill recommendation from the super committee won't have "vast bipartisan support."

[gateley]

77. Tell that to the Senate. McConnell always threatens a filibuster

and it's the Senate Dems who say, okay, we'll go for the 60 then.

They're the ones responsible.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Senate procedure is arguably more nuanced than constitutional law

If you want a real answer as to why reconciliation was okay in one instance but not in the other, you should write to the Senate parliamentarian's office and ask them. Harry Reid probably couldn't even explain to you the differences without a memo from the parliamentarian to reference. You pretty much have to do this shit for a living (or a very serious hobby in Senator Byrd's case) to understand it.

The real question is, why do we allow the Senate to operate under these arcane procedures.

[In Jest]

79. It was accepted by elected Dems

I seriously doubt it got much traction here.

[lonestarnot]

80. Do not recall repeating that lie even once.

:shrug: K & R!

[gulliver]

81. Santa talked everyone into it.

Yup. Your Santa Claus betrayed you. Face it.

[hulka38]

82. Howard Dean was also highly critical of Democratic leadership

during the process in an interview with NPR. He said the Democrats should just pass it through reconciliation and that if the Republicans were in this situation, they wouldn't hesitate to use reconciliation to get it done. Your conclusion that "they simply didn't want a public option" is absolutely correct as is the rest of your OP. What the leadership of this party did was unforgivable.

[joshcryer]

83. Virtual filibuster is not a lie.

[ClassWarrior]

85. No, it's a threat by bullies.

NGU.

[ScreamingMeemie]

88. Because it makes it easier to turn one's back on people like me.

Because it makes it easier to taunt those of us who still cannot purchase decent health insurance about how we didn't get our pony. Because, for some, Democratic leadership doesn't need to be held accountable for not adhering to Democratic principles.

[BzaDem]

90. It's pretty amazing for someone to use the word "lie" while simultaneously making false statements.

The public option would not have gone anywhere under reconciliation. Republicans would have filed 100 points of order against it line by line, for any provision that has any non-budgetary effect in addition to its budgetary effect. EACH ONE would have required 60 votes to overcome.

You can be anti-blue-link (aren't all links blue?), anti-fact, anti-reason, anti-reality, anti-whatever you want. The falsehoods you are posting simply do not change reality, no matter how much you might wish to.

[BlueCheese]

95. It's been well-established that the White House cut a deal early on.

In return for support from the health care industry, the administration decided early on to abandon the public option. The rest of it was just theater in trying to find a plausible villain: the filibuster, or Joe Lieberman, or phases of the moon.

The New York Times reported it at the time. Tom Daschle basically said it flat out later on. By the end, Obama was claiming he hadn't campaigned on the public option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=all

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2010/10/05/171689/daschle-interview/

[court jester]

98. also: PBS Frontline- Obamas Deal

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal

watch it online

It is a superb expose

watch Obama on Ellen clobbering Hillary's mandate:
http://youtu.be/9R-z-fFnuh0

"if things were that easy I could mandate that everyone buy a house and that would solve the problem of homelessness"

So, if the insurance mandate was "an obvious" outcome, then Barack Obama was ill-informed, or...



Why did "democrat" Max Baucus have doctors and nurses arrested at a hearing?

Why is this acceptable behavior from a Democrat? Why have so many forgotten this outrage?

Some of us will never forget this. Ever.

[Enthusiast]

109. More truth.

Thank you.

[Hawkowl]

126. +1000

Yes! A lot of us will NEVER accept that lie or any of the others that have sold us out!

[Raine]

96. K&R nt

:kick: :thumbsup:

[Tx4obama]

97. Unrec. Because the OP is a lie filled with much misinformation.

The dems needed 60 votes for cloture and we did not have 60 votes.
Senator Franken was not sworn in until July 2009 and Senator Kennedy died in August 2009.

The HC bill could not have included a Public Option via reconciliation.

PLEASE stop posting falsehoods !!!

[no limit]

102. You are the one spreading falsehoods. You either don't know how reconciliation works

in which case you should take a trip to wikipedia. Or you are simply spreading misinformation on purpose. I'm guessing it's the latter since what you said has been debunked in this thread over and over again already.

[disillusioned73]

99. Thanks for the reminder...

I remember this whole process very well, and no amount of spin will change reality. The Dems lacked the courage and conviction to make REAL "change", it's as simple as that. The process arguments are just fog to blur reality, I was very engaged at the time - more so than any other time... this was one of the defining issues that I thought would make Obamas presidency historic, alas it wasn't meant to be.

FACT; A deal was cut with the Insurance/Pharma industry

FACT; Single payer advocates were not afforded a seat at the table - LITERALLY

FACT; Blue Dogs DINOs(minority) had more influence in writing this legislation than any other

This period of time drove me to DU more than any other, I could not take all the tro//s at other sites talking about socialized medicine, bla-bla-bla. I found comfort in reading people of like mind that believed health-care should not be a profit driven service.

I feel/felt that our leftward pull was not headed and now they expect us to sing the praises of legislation that didn't go far enough and yet still has been defined as "socialized medicine" from the right. The negotiation tactic of starting from a right of center position didn't work then and isn't working now..

Disappointed & disillusioned is an understatement..

[Enthusiast]

111. PLUS ONE!

"FACT; Blue Dogs DINOs(minority) had more influence in writing this legislation than any other"

Just like they'll cut our social security and medicare.

[LWolf]

104. Because the president must be supported and defended at all costs.

Truth, integrity, and Democratic values can all be tossed overboard in the effort.

[mopinko]

105. don't we have any fresh horses to beat?

this one here started to smell and rot a long time ago.

[no limit]

119. This is by far the clearest example of the president telling us something

while never actually intending to do it.

So I think this is a pretty important horse to keep on beating. One of the problems this country faces is the short attention span that it has.

[Enthusiast]

106. Kicked and recommended! nt

[Brickbat]

110. Because fighting a filibuster is scary and requires you to stand up for what you say you believe in.

[sofa king]

112. Sigh. Where does the reconciled bill go after it passes?

Back to the Senate for final passage, where it still needs 60 votes to invoke cloture on debate. Where it would have been debated until that session of Congress ended.

[no limit]

116. Jesus fucking christ. How many times does this have to be repeated?

There is no cloture vote in the reconciliation process. That is the whole fucking point of reconciliation.

I'm sorry for my french but this has been explained in this thread over and over again yet people like you keep repeating this bullshit.

[sofa king]

141. (Hint: stop using Wikipedia as your source)

The reconciled bill has to be approved again by the House and the Senate. As soon as it goes to the Senate, there are an array of other procedural rules that allow all of the Senate's arsenal of delay to be used against it, despite the Byrd Rule. Even the 20-hour filibuster rule is automatically lifted if the reconciled bill violates the Byrd Rule, as your proposal does.

That's why reconciliation bills are usually only passed when one party controls or nearly controls both houses. Only one reconciliation bill has ever passed when Congress is divided and the Democrats control the Senate. That's because Senator Byrd knew that the importance of his rule was in its perception, not its difficult enforcement.

[COLGATE4]

115. Absolutely correct;. But the meme now is "Nothing to see here-

just move along".

[pam4water]

118. K&R at the same time someone -1'ed XD

[SOS]

121. The Senate represents the interests of capital, not labor

It's a corrupt millionaires club, paid for in full.
Baucus, Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson et al sold us out for corporate cash.

David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan (March, 1906):

"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous: interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people, of the educated into sycophants, of the masses toward serfdom. "

[EOTE]

122. More importantly, why do so few here recognize that it was off the table from the beginning?

That's the more egregious issue here. For months Obama gave the appearance that he was pushing for the PO while he had already assured insurers that it was off the table. If that doesn't disgust one, what does?

[bvar22]

123. They LIE for the same reason most people lie... to cover the shame.

K&R


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[librechik]

129. wishful thinking

The lame duck congress behaved abysmally too--there was an opportunity to kill the Bush tax cuts, adda public option etc--they just went to sleep rather than try anything daring the Repubs.