BluegrassDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:31 PM
Original message |
Can someone tell me how the PO passes the Senate??? |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-10-09 04:32 PM by BluegrassDem
Most sources in the Senate seem to think it's virtually impossible to pass a PO via reconciliation. And there's now on Earth it can get 60 votes via the traditional way.
The ONLY way I see this thing is that the Senate passes some sorta compromise 'trigger' option plan, then let it go to conference and try to stick the PO back in there and go for 50 votes. However, it seems that the Senate passing a trigger plan will make this site and others go in defcon 4 and call for a primary in 2012.
Unless someone has a better idea, I don't see how this happens any other way. That's why the president is not drawing a line in the sand on the PO.
|
WI_DEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Why can't it pass by reconciliation? if it can't why does Reid say |
|
that while he doesn't want to do it he will if he has to?
|
BluegrassDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. A lot of Dems are saying it probably can't be done via recon |
|
They can do other parts of reform, but not the public option. And it's a very risky move cause apparently there's tons of roadblocks repugs can throw up. It's not necessarily the easiest solution.
|
valerief
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:35 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Horse heads in bed? nt |
high density
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I say let them try to filibuster it. This 60 vote nonsense is for the birds |
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Make them filibuster. Make them stand up 24/7 and explain why they don't want Americans to be able to afford medical care. Respond with story after story of people who've been denied and dropped.
Then, in a state of pure desperation, declare "OK, we tried. Enough. We'll end the filibuster with a change of rules." Then, go for reconcilliation or the nuclear option.
|
FormerDittoHead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
13. Absolutely. Break the filibuster then up or down. n/t |
BluegrassDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
14. Why? So the bill will die and we'll try again in another 20 years? |
|
You act like Republicans have shame. They don't care. They live in redneck states that'll keep voting them in anyway. They got nothing to lose by filibustering.
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:39 PM
Response to Original message |
4. There's also the "nuclear option" |
|
You can change the Senate rules with a simple majority -- bye-bye filibuster.
I've always opposed that tactic, but I think this case is important enough to consider it. Change the rules, pass health care with a public option, change the rules back.
BTW, I don't think any kind of health care plan can pass without doing that or reconcilliation. No matter what we attempt, Repugs say no. It isn't just a matter of giving something to the insurance companies. They've declared that this will be Obama's Waterloo. They'll never go along with anything.
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. That's another option that can be used by whatever party controls the Senate |
|
Majority rule. The Republicans in the Senate represent less than 20% of the nations population. If the Democratic majority lets them call the shots they will have engaged in a historic surrender and will certainly lose control of Congress and the White House.
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message |
7. You just introduce the legislation, have a short debate and take a vote! |
|
Some people try to make it seem like rocket science but it isn't.
Now, if any obstructionist Republicans insist on taking the floor for a day or two in a filibuster to delay a bill that most people support, what is the problem with that?
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
I hope they do fricken filibuster! Isolate them even more.
Let them argue against health care, on the Senate floor, until 60 Senators agree to end the debate (cloture). Than vote on the bill!
|
DJ13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If (IF) Obama wants a public option he has the man responsible for many of the recent Blue Dogs running for their seats in Rahm.
Arm twisting to gain most of them to support a public option wouldnt be too hard.....IF they really want it.
|
Zen Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:46 PM
Response to Original message |
11. You let the filibuster play out -- make 'em talk -- then you get 50 vote minimum. nt |
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-10-09 04:51 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Bernie Sanders keeps saying it is possible, for some reason I believe him |
|
How it is going to work out, I don't know.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 05:33 PM
Response to Original message |