GUARANTEED:Initial Senate HEALTH CARE Bill Will NOT Have A Public Option

[Segami]

" It's just about a 100% certainty that the draft of the senate bill that goes out to the floor for a vote, first facing filibuster, will not include the public option.


That way, Lieberman, Baucus and the gang of Republicrats will have no excuse help prevent the GOP filibuster. There may even be Republicans who go along, like Olympia Snowe. They will have been given cover, allowed to only vote on a bill that met the criteria they "so boldly" set.


Once the bill gets into conference, the house and senate can get together and add the public option and it will only take 51 senate votes to pass. They might even try to pull out the anti-abortion amendment, since so many of them Bluedogs who voted for the house anti-abortion amendment failed to vote for the reform bill. That's far less likely.


The question is in the way Harry Reid handles this. Lieberman and Snowe understand all this. Will they vote to pass a bill without a public option, knowing that it may be added?


That's going to be the big question.



<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Guaranteed-Initial-Senate-by-Rob-Kall-091109-597.html>

[babylonsister]

1. Sigh. I don't think it's obvious. nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. At this point, I"m noving on to reconciliation......

cause I don't see another way.....

It is important enough.

[tritsofme]

8. Then the question becomes, does Joe Lieberman join Republicans

in attempting to filibuster the second bill of regulations that cannot be passed through reconciliation?

The ability to only pass half of the reform would hobble the reform effort.

I would not put it past him at this point.

[Aramchek]

3. sure it will.

[spanone]

4. is that you carnac?

[tritsofme]

5. In this scenario it would take 60 votes to add a public option

Won't the conference report also face a cloture vote?

[regnaD kciN]

15. Yes, but then they could go to reconciliation...

...because then the P.O. could be presented as an item that would lower the cost of the already-approved Senate form of the bill, therefore making it eligible for reconciliation.

I was thinking this same thing earlier today -- it would make a lot more sense than trying to invoke reconciliation twice (for the initial Senate bill and the final bill that comes out of conference).

[w4rma]

6. Bad analysis. Especially with the Big Dawg rallying the DLCers, tomorrow. (nt)

[Segami]

9. So what. If LIEberman isn't on board ( and his latest statements confirm what his position will be )

what in heavens name do you think BD Clinton can say to make him change his position? If LIEberman continues to hold on to his current position, then what? What are the options? How many sharp tacks on these boards predicted that the Stupak authored amendment that NOBODY took very seriously would create the unexpected mess on the eve of Saturday's health care vote?

[HughMoran]

7. Since it should only take 51 to pass the bill anyway

I'd be fine with this method if it's the only alternative we have left.

[TicketyBoo]

10. I don't know if he knows what he's talking about

but when Senator Ben Nelson was here for a town hall meeting in August, he said that he did not think reconciliation was an option. He said it more than once. Really pooh-poohed it.

I hope he's wrong.

[HughMoran]

11. That's because Ben Nelson doesn't want the Dems to win

I'm not surprised that he said that. I haven't seen any solid analysis against using this approach - it's how Bush got his tax cuts for the rich through Congress.

[Segami]

12. And then some. Looks like LIEberman will fill Zell Miller's shoes just fine.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, among others. In a March 28 article, The New York Times reported: "here are a couple of problems for Republicans as they push back furiously against the idea, chief of which is the fact that they used the process themselves on several occasions, notably when enacting more than $1 trillion in tax cuts in 2001." The article continued:


That means critics can have a field day lampooning Republicans and asking them -- as Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, did repeatedly the other day -- why reconciliation was such a good idea when it came to giving tax cuts to millionaires but such a bad one when it comes to trying to provide health care to average Americans.


McConnell was one of 51 senators -- all 50 Republicans and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) -- who voted in favor of a 2001 amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution that allowed for the consideration of President Bush's 2001 tax cuts -- the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 -- through the reconciliation process. McConnell subsequently voted for the tax cut bill itself.


<http://mediamatters.org/research/200904240021>

[HughMoran]

13. It'll be a joy watching the Republicans once again hang themselves

with their own hypocrisy.

[Segami]

14. I'll pop the corn, you bring the lawn chairs.

<>

Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of them today.