Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some ideas posted here would be a lot more credible with a list of 50 conceivable Senate votes.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:47 PM
Original message
Some ideas posted here would be a lot more credible with a list of 50 conceivable Senate votes.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 06:48 PM by BzaDem
Yes, 50 isn't enough for things that would get cut out of reconciliation (such as mandates and pre-existing condition coverage). But some people post requirements and/or "lines in the sand" that wouldn't even get 50 votes, let alone the 60 that might be required. I sometimes feel that out of frustration with our current political reality some people are trying to act as if we are in an alternate one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. That want an alternative one and blame everyone else for it not being their alternative universe
DU is anything but objectively practical or even rationale
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. If I read one more thread encouraging folks to call the White House and demand....
.... that the President support single payer, I'm gonna scream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. +1
Reps and Senators, that's a different matter.

And a pox on anyone whining here about any of this who hasn't also taken some action beyond the whining.

A pox, I say!

(but nothing too damaging)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. CAll the WH Right Fucking Now!
And demand single payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! :-) NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. If we can't get 50 votes, we should give up.
I think Obama blew his first chance at health care reform by pushing for a weak plan. I think he should table the idea, for now, and push for single payer in 2011. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Just like Democrats gained 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House in 1994?
If we don't pass a healthcare bill, we will lose control of the house and possibly the Senate.

Seriously, this post is today's quintessential post living in the alternate reality that I was talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. This time the Repukes don't have Gingrich and the Contract On America Lying Machine
They have the cable haters, but no one believes what they say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. I do not fear a repeat of 1994.
The political climate is really very different now than it was then. In 1994, the Republican Party's approval ratings were not in the toilet. The ghost of Ronald Reagan was much more powerful then. Whereas Clinton followed Bush I, Obama follows one of the least popular politicians in American history, Bush II. Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. Obama was elected with well over 50% of the popular vote. The religious right had not completely taken over the Republican Party then. Now, Republican politicians are generally insane, reflecting their rabid base.

I think Obama blew his first chance at health care reform by pushing for a weak plan. I think he should table the idea, for now, and push for single payer in 2011. The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. Some people seem to forget that the executive controls the administrative agencies
and that they have a lot of power over policy, provided that the administration has the political will use it.

Congress need not be involved- and indeed, can't do one damn thing about it without a veto proof majority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. If you are saying Obama can cover the uninsured without Congress, that is as true as Palin's
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 07:11 PM by BzaDem
claim that any healthcare bill currently under consideration contains "death panels."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Nope- but I am saying that the FCC could re-regulate America's dysfunctional media
and that other agencies could re-regulate the financial industry- or prosecute those who violate federal laws with impunity.

The FDA could effectively remove disease mongering drug ads from TV. Etc.

In addition, they can use the THREAT of doing all of this and more as a sword of Damocles to push public policy forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Since the majority -- I haven't checked, but..
...I'd say the vast majority -- of Americans get their TV over cable, there's now very little the FCC can do about content if the channel doesn't go out over the air.

The 'in the public interest' licensure requirement applies only to broadcast. You'll notice that Fox News is only available on cable -- for a reason. Only the technical quality of their satellite uplink transmitters is under FCC purview.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Last I saw, companies that owned the cable channels also have a lot of broadcasting outlets
as well as print media that could (and should and once were) covered by cross ownership rules... among other things.

Moreover, media ethics (and as we've seen, the lack thereof) are contagious. Put it back in one area, and it "infiltrates" the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. And the money to pay for it.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 07:22 PM by Davis_X_Machina
What you can do without without appropriating any additional money is limited. There are dinks and dunks with things like Medicaid regulations, but to cover presently uninsured bodies in meaningful numbers, you need money. Ridiculous amounts of money, and that means Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Congress hasn't stepped in and taken appropriations in the past
Despite some pretty egregious rulemaking. As a practical matter- it ain't gonna happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Politics most days means working hard...
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 07:26 PM by Davis_X_Machina
...on someone else's idea, that you don't much like, with people you don't much like, on behalf of people who won't notice, and when they finally notice, complain that it's too little, too late, and too expensive.

It's a miracle anyone runs for office, and not surprising that many who do are a little....odd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. We can easily get 50 votes WITHOUT reconciliation!

Just challenge the Republicans to engage in a real on the Senate floor filibuster against a bill with a strong public option.

A filibuster won't last very long. Perhaps a few days, maybe a bit longer. If they want to tie up the Senate much longer let them accept the public wrath for being obstructionists!

All filibusters end.

And I don't think any Democrats or all Republicans will participate in and prolong a genuine filibuster.

So far the Republicans haven't even threatened a filibuster!

They don't want their bluff called or understand that if forced to engage in a real Senate filibuster it will run out of gas, sooner rather than later.

After 60 Senators vote to end a real Republican filibuster you don't think President Obama can round up 50 votes to pass a real halthcare reform bill?

If that's true, having elected a Democratic President and a huge majority in the House and Senate in 2008 didn't really mean that much in terms of changing government policies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You're missing the point. I'm saying that a lot of DU-healthcare-proposals WON'T EVEN GET 50 votes.
Single payer is a perfect example. There are not 50 Senators who even want Single Payer, let alone who will vote for it.

A perpetually-subsidized public option (that won't have to break even) is another bill that will not even get 50 votes even if we could put it up for a vote that way.

A public option that has to break even and won't be able to use Medicare rates is about the limit that will get 50 votes. That might be able to squeak by on 50 votes + Biden, or maybe 51 or 52. There are several Democrats who won't even vote for that, but that might not be enough to cause it to fail on a majority vote.

Your description of how easy it is to break a fillibuster is not accurate, and I have pointed this out several times to you. But even if (for the sake of argument) we assume that the filibuster doesn't exist, much of what people on DU think they are going to get won't even pass with a majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I understand your defeatist position, I just disagree with it.

With a properly executed campaign and a mass movement behind it we could win a single payer system. In fact, with competent and effective leadership from the White House and congressional leaders (and a mass movement behind it) I think it would be easier to win single payer than a public option.

It's simple, clear, makes sense and would target the money hungry insurance industry and drug cartel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Part of the reason I do not agree is that we have had 60 years and close to 30 Congresses that have not even passed a single payer bill through a single committee. There is a reason for that.

I agree that at a certain point, it may very well be possible to ELECT enough congresspeople to support such a bill. I'm not saying that is impossible. I just think the current slate of congresspersons would not even come close to support single payer (or a perpetually-subsidized public option).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Until the past few years there really wasn't much of a movement for single payer.

This is something pretty new and the single payer movement will continue to grow, with or without a weak public option signed into law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 30th 2014, 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC