Howard Dean just said the Democrats will rue the day they didn't just go for budget reconciliation -

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

for HCR.

This was on Dylan. He said that without a public option the Dems would have nothing concrete to SHOW by the time the midterms roll around and we will get crushed. He said since Obama isn't on the ballot that a lot of base Dems will sit on their hands (which is what happened in Virginia)

He suggested that if there is no public option, Medicare needs to be opened up to enroll some of the uninsured in order to HAVE SOME RESULTS. I posted exactly that point yesterday.

[tekisui]

1. I wish the Dems would listen to Dean. His ideas got them the majority.

If only they would heed his words on governing. They depended on his strategy to win elections, then ignore him.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Me thinks Howard and Rahm don't get along

And Rahm is closer to Obama. Obama is essentially the leader of the party so Rahm is driving more policy and legislation than Howard.

[derby378]

8. You nailed it - Rahm is DLC, and Dean never was

Dean refused to kiss Al From's ring in 2003, so From sent some of his best men to shut down the Dean campaign.

[Individualist]

46. +1

Dean was right when he described the DLC as the republican wing of the Democratic Party.

[jgraz]

60. Rahm will never forgive Dean for the success of the 50-state strategy

[yurbud]

53. the DLCers think we will be forced to vote for them because the only alternative is frothing GOP

But we can turn them out in primaries, and lobby for clean money, throw rotten fruit at them when they show up in public, and other things to make their lives miserable.

[karynnj]

41. Many people worked to get the majority - the failures of Bush likely did the most

I think what Dean does get enormous credit for is building the local parties and having good candidate there and ready when things swung in our favor. There were many districts that Rahm did not sponsor candidates for.

That had nothing to do with issues that he espoused in 2004 or afterward.

[madfloridian]

43. "There were many districts that Rahm did not sponsor candidates for."

What kind of excuse is that?

[karynnj]

51. Not an excuse - but a condemnation of Rahm and praise for Dean

who worked hard to have the best possible candidate in every race. My point is that, if Dean were not at DNC and a Rahm clone were there (and Rahm at DCCC), there would have been no viable candidate in many of those districts that we won, but which had been written off.

[patrice]

2. I think he's right. People are going to say "There's no there there."

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. That's dawning on a lot of people. The Blue Dogs hijacked the party

and and HCR now they're about to sucessfully kill off both. Were they moles in the first place?

If you want Democratic votes - ACT LIKE A DEMOCRAT!!!!

We're about to have the most disaffected electorate in history on BOTH sides.

[laughingliberal]

7. Quite true, I'm afraid

Isn't it time to send Rahm home to spend time with his family?

[leftynyc]

50. Apparently the President doesn't think so

And his is the only opinion that counts.

[laughingliberal]

66. Yes, he does seem to be a little out of touch with the feelings of his base

Not a good thing if it persists into the midterms

[leftynyc]

70. Not all his base

I like Rahm just fine. Or are you like the repubs who want a purity test?

[laughingliberal]

72. No, I am not like the Republicans who want a purity test and that is an uncalled for swipe.

I would certainly appreciate it if the CofS didn't refer to ads run by organizations supporting real health care reform as "f***ing stupid." And I would like to see, just once, him go ask the DINO's he recruited to 'play nice' with the progressive caucus instead of the other way around. And his insulting statements to the press regarding the 'left of the left' were leaked incessantly. If the president did not agree with these statements I presume he would have put an end to Rahm's continuous leaking.

I made a perfectly reasonable observation and your response is a passive aggressive swipe at me. How about we try this? I can have my opinion without making a personal attack and you can have yours without making a personal attack. See how that could work? You could be there having your thoughts and opinions and I could be here having mine.

[leftynyc]

73. I wasn't the one assuming

his base felt the same way about any position. You spoke of "his base" like it was a monolith entity that was in agreement on 100% of the issues. It's not. Sorry you saw my pointing that out as an attack. I certainly didn't mean it that way. I was just clarifying that among his base, there is still a difference of opinion on a whole range of issues. Peace.

[laughingliberal]

5. Have to agree. This bill is a lesson in how to piss everyone off

The right doesn't want to support any reform. The sane center and the left have nothing here to help them get motivated and excited. So, they are left with no enthusiastic support at all. The right is motivated and will come out to vote against Dems in 2010. With little progress on enacting any progressive policies (thus far) the base will be apathetic and stay home.

[BzaDem]

6. On Senate procedure, Howard Dean is an idiot.

It is likely that a public option itself would be stripped out of the reconciliation bill due to a violation of the Byrd rule. On the off chance that it stayed in, the provision that banned discrimination based upon pre-existing conditions would absolutely be stripped out. This means that either the public option would have to discriminate, or the public option would choose not to and the private insurance companies would force all sick people onto the public option. The premiums the public option would have to charge would be 5-10 times what any other private insurance company would be able to charge.

Howard Dean's ideas seem to be suffering from the same fallacy that the ideas of many here are suffering from: the delusion that just because one really, really wants something, that it is actually possible to get. As progressive Senator Jay Rockefeller said, reconciliation would be a nightmare for progressive policy.

[madfloridian]

11. Then you are saying that having a majority is useless.

And that we don't need one.

And that is exactly why there might be handsitters next year.

Why bother to work our butts off, donate money till it hurts to give the party a majority....when they do not use it.

And Landrieu is not the health care saint you made her out to be in your other post.

[BzaDem]

18. EXACTLY! You finally get it! Why is this so hard for others to get?

Having a majority in the Senate is useless. Useless. U-s-e-l-e-s-s. I seriously don't know how else to make it any clearer. Why is this so hard for so many people on DU to comprehend? Why is it so surprising? It has taken 60 or more votes to cut off debate on any non-budget bill in the Senate for most of the 20th century. This isn't some new rule. Republicans had their plans to end Social Security as we know it dashed because of it. Their tax cut bill (which, being a budget bill, was able to go through reconciliation) has to expire now because they couldn't get 60 votes for a non-reconciliation bill. They couldn't open up ANWR because they didn't have 60 votes. We couldn't pass campaign finance reform in the 80s (despite ordering the Sargent at Arms to forcibly bring all Senators to the chamber and having 8 cloture votes). We couldn't pass healthcare in the 90s. Over and over.

Yet despite all of this evidence, the crowd on DU who doesn't believe in facts and reality continues to pretend that having an absolute majority in the Senate actually means something with regards to healthcare. Why is this? Aren't people on DU supposed to be educated about how our government works?

[madfloridian]

20. I am not anti-reality.....I expect a majority to act like one.

I love not donating, getting used to having my credit card paid off instead of worrying about donating to people who in the end won't stand up for us and what our party should stand for.

In fact I am getting very comfortable saying NO to Democrats wanting money....it should worry them if many feel that way.

Oh, wait, they don't need our money...they have the big money now.

[BzaDem]

21. In that case, you support enacting laws by dictatorial fiat.

You can't have it both ways. You either acknowledge the obvious, that we need 60 votes for a strong healthcare bill and we currently only have at most 58, or you support enacting laws by fiat outside of the legislative process. You can't just put your fingers in your ears, sing "la la la I can't hear you," and pretend the 60 vote threshold doesn't actually exist, when it has thwarted both parties' legislative agendas for generations.

What's really sad is that as a former teacher, instead of trying to educate other people on how our government actually works, you are the one that refuses to understand simple facts related to how our government works. And furthermore, your posts mislead (intentionally or not) others into thinking that our system of government allows a majority in the Senate to actually do anything. Instead of convincing others to continue to work for Democrats so we can one day get 60 progressives in the Senate to enact our legislative agenda, you take exactly the opposite approach. You give up when we have 55-58 votes for a strong healthcare bill and think that maybe if we just had 40 or 45 votes instead that we would somehow be better off.

So much for civics education in this country.

[madfloridian]

22. What a terribly insulting and misleading post.

I have been actively supporting the party and candidates since 2003. Now I am not. The day Rahm was chosen the message was sent.

We have had to fight to be heard far more than the extreme right has had to do.

They have been pampered and catered to every step of the way, while people like you call people like me names.

[BzaDem]

29. What we actually need to do is win elections for 60 progressive Senators. Anything else won't work.

We will continue to have to pass laws that are acceptable to the 60th Senator. Until the 60th Senator is a progressive, we will not be able to enact Progressive policy. Hating Rahm might be therapeutic (and even justified for other reasons), but it does not help us get to a place where 60 progressives can win Senate seats.

[madfloridian]

35. "Hating Rahm might be therapeutic" Oh, hell, yes it is.

I have seen first hand in Florida the harm he did as DCCC chair.

Obama said he picked him because he would "have his back."

And it appears he picked him to protect him from other points of view.

I don't like Rahm at all, I think he is harmful to the party. I am sad and sorry the president picked him.

It is discouraging.

[laughingliberal]

24. Yes, because Dean said Dems will rue the day they didn't use dictatorial fiat...

oh, wait...he said they would rue the day they didn't use reconciliation. I was not aware reconciliation was the same as dictatorial fiat. We should alert Howard right away!

[BzaDem]

26. Howard Dean is wrong about Senate procedure if he thinks reconciliation would allow a public option.

At least, he is wrong if he thinks it would allow a public option whose premiums didn't have to be 5-10x times those of private insurance companies. The lack of guaranteed issue and community rating regulations that would be stripped under reconciliation would cause the public option (and any option that didn't discriminate against sick people) to have an endless premium death spiral.

[laughingliberal]

27. You may be right but my money's on Dean for understanding how it could be done.

Sorry. I just trust him more and, based on your attitude here, I like him more.

[BzaDem]

31. If it means anything, I really wish he were right.

But he isn't. Anyone directly asked the question about whether community rating or guaranteed issue could pass under reconciliation gives an unequivocal "NO." Such regulations are not germane to the budget, and this is true on its face. Dean has never even denied this to my knowledge (I don't think the media brings it up with him). Perhaps Dean is envisioning a public option that also discriminates against sick people. That would work (for those who aren't sick). But I don't see how that is a progressive policy or a good policy, or a policy that should be passed.

Or perhaps Dean does not know the nuances of the Byrd rule, which governs which provisions are stripped under reconciliation. It is a very complicated rule, and Dean is not an expert on Senate procedure. (Neither am I, which is why I spend a lot of time listening to and reading from people who are.)

[laughingliberal]

23. There is the option of using reconciliation and I am tired of people here who say

"why is this so hard for people to understand?" It's condescending and belittling. I understand the limits of reconciliation but, frankly, a lot of the issues which would have to be left off to do reconciliation aren't that great, anyway. We could certainly set up a public option under it.

[BzaDem]

25. We could NOT set up a viable public option under reconciliation.

The reason is that we cannot force private insurance companies to cover everyone and not discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Everyone concedes that the Senate parliamentarian will certainly strip this from the bill.

Without that reform, the private insurance companies will force all those who are sick into the public option. Since the public option would have to sustain itself on premiums, those premiums would have to cover a much sicker risk pool than any private insurance company. The 5-10x higher premiums would force more healthy people out of the public option, causing the risk pool to be even sicker, and causing premiums to be even higher. It would be an endless premium death spiral.

[laughingliberal]

32. The insuance companies won't just strip sick people. They will stip anyone who might possibly ever

get sick. A lot of those people will not get sick. I paid high rates for a long time when I had coverage because of some pre-exisiting conditions and guess what? I went several years without even seeing a doctor, at times, was on no regular prescriptions, had no surgery, spent almost none of the money I paid. Putting all those with pre-existing conditions in a pool will not necessarily result in a loss.

[BzaDem]

34. Even if that is true

consider two pools. One pool (private insurance) consists solely of people who will not ever get sick (to the best of insurance companies' knowledge). The other pool consists of some people who are very sick, others who are somewhat sick, others that are not sick but at risk for getting sick, and still others who are not sick and will never get sick. This latter pool is the pool for the public option.

Which pool is going to have lower premiums? By a lot? Clearly the former pool.

Now, if the former pool accepts all very healthy people, and has much lower premiums, which company will healthy people choose? The cheaper one. Which will hurt the balance of the public pool even more. Which will cause premiums of the public option to go up even higher. Ad infinitum.

[laughingliberal]

45. I think there's a way to do it

It may take an infusion of tax dollars to set it up to keep initial premiums low (doable under reconciliation). Allow anyone who wants the PO to buy in. I do not think Dean would be advocating for reconciliation if he did not see a way to do it which would help. Perhaps someone could write and ask him how he envisions that working. I believe there are some restrictions which could be put on the private insurance companies if they leave in the subsidies for lower income workers. If we are subsidizing their industry, we can make some rules for them. I think subsidies (out of our tax dollars) could remain in the bill done under reconciliation.

[karynnj]

48. Very nice explanation

[karynnj]

44. No, there is a huge difference in having the majority or not having it

We had to fight bad bills to keep them from getting passed when they were in charge. Now, we are fighting for improvements to what exists.

[n2doc]

9. The "centrists" keep moving HCR back

First 2010, then 2012, then 2014.... Dean is right, the Repubs are gonna have a field day if everything is postponed, because what they will do is say "see, you didn't get anything out of the HCR bill, and yet it cost TRILLIONS!" Won't matter if the costs are also postponed, they won't get called on that lie by the MSM. People need to see results. Obama is already in trouble because he spent far too much of the stimulus package on welfare for the banks and tax cuts (and the latter he isn't even getting credit for since the MSM only talks about how he "raised taxes"). And on waffling on the war and Gitmo.

[BzaDem]

10. In case you haven't noticed, it was Reid who moved it back to 2014, and Landrieu who is demanding

that it be moved to some time earlier than 2014.

The reason is that the later the bill starts, the better the bill can be. If you start collecting taxes now, but start providing benefits later, the lower the bill scores over the 10 year window (which means the more benefits the bill can provide for the same taxes and still be deficit neutral).

[madfloridian]

12. Read this about Mary Landrieu's "demands" . Pushing for trigger.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/21/mary-landrieu-at-some-point-harry-reid-will-have-to-indulge-us-spoiled-children/

"Mary Landrieu isn’t satisfied with her hundred million dollar bribe just to proceed to debate in the Senate. She now says that triggers are inevitable:

After announcing her intent to support a health care debate this afternoon, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told reporters she thinks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon have to choose between a triggered public option and no health care bill. She also says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)–the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate one of its most fierce and vocal public option advocates–has been tasked as a point man on the issue.

“I believe it’s going to be very clear at some point very soon that there are not 60 votes for the current provision in the bill, and that the leader and the leadership are going to have to make a decision and I trust that they will figure out how to do that,” Landrieu told reporters."

And if you don't believe that blog, do a search. I found 10 right away.

[BzaDem]

19. That is my entire point.

The person to whom I replied to was arguing that "centrists" were responsible for pushing the benefits start date into the future (to 2014). My entire point was that in reality, the liberals are pushing it into the future (to 2014), and the centrists (Landrieu/etc.) want it earlier. They don't want it earlier because they are "health care saints." They want it earlier because that way, the benefits have to be reduced to maintain deficit neutrality in the 10-year window.

[n2doc]

15. When did Reid become a liberal? And Landrieu is a DINO.

And taxing people now for benefits later is going to be SO popular. Just imagine if FDR had said "I'm going to start a new program called Social Security, and I am going to tax you now until we build enough of a kitty so that it doesn't effect our fiances. So you can look forwards to getting a check in, say, 5 years!" Bet that would have gone over just ducky.

Sometimes I wonder if Obama wants a second term. Where is the active leadership needed to kill this crap? He sure had no problem funneling money to the banks asap.

[old mark]

13. Dems in congress have spent maybe 15 years trying to convince the public

that they are the same as Republicans. The conservative Democrats probably are mostly republicans at heart, and the few real left Democrats have little to say. It's really a shame how the left in the US has allowed itself to become even more of a fringe than the RW/religious idiot republican factions. We spend so much time hating other leftists and Democrats and we cannot motivate our own party to do simple things like voting for Democrats, or even voting at all.

If the "center" had to count on a large, active left for support, they would be moving in our direction instead of to the right. Politicians will kiss ANYONE's ass to get re elected, even ours.

Sadly, we never make them do that.

mark

[madfloridian]

17. You are very right.

They have done a good job of convincing me. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

14. Here's the video from the Morning Meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UafcFJLTumE

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

61. Thanks for posting that madfloridian. nt

[HughMoran]

16. And what part of "opt out" do the 4 Dempublicans not understand?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[kentuck]

28. I agree with the good Doctor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7072216

[Barack_America]

30. The Dems don't need budget reconciliation. They need to make the GOP filibuster.

And to make the conservadems stand there with the GOP and filibuster their own party.

The language that budget reconciliation would require would potentially force the bill to be narrower in scope, less comprehensive.

That, IMO, makes it a less attractive option than a humiliating filibuster (let the GOP read the phone book while Dems read the stories of AMERICANS who have died from lack of insurance).

That and Reid needs to make good on his threat to remove conservadems from their chairs.

[BzaDem]

36. That is basically impossible.

The best Democrats would be able to do would be to force one out of the 41 filibustering Senators to talk at a time. They could all alternate over a period of months. Every 15 minutes, the Republican senator would say "I sense the absence of a quorum." That would trigger a 15-minute quorum call. Over and over.

Furthermore, at least 51 Democrats would have to sit there the entire time while only one single Republican/conservadem would have to be there (talking or asking for a quorum call). If any fewer than 51 Democrats were there at any time, the quorum call would fail and the Senate would adjourn for the rest of the day. It would be almost trivial for Republicans to sustain alternating one person on the floor calling for quorum until November 2010.

[optimator]

33. Dean needs to wake up

These Dems do not listen to him.
They do not listen to us.
They only listen to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[kentuck]

37. in 8 years of George W Bush, how many 60-vote majorities were needed?

I cannot remember a single one? Perhaps there were but I cannot remember any?? Why? Isn't that why the Bush taxcuts had the sunset provision?

[madfloridian]

39. Exactly. It's become a worn-out excuse not to do anything.

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. Dr. Dean is correct - as he has been about 99% of the time since 2003

And these goddamnable traitors in the DLC and Blue Balled Cowards have been wrong 100% of the time.

The weak ass candidate (and no, McUseless wouldn't have been any better) in Virginia gave Democrats no reason to vote for him. He deserved to lose, though it's too bad it had to be to a literal Pat Robertson flunkie.

Opening up Medicare would be a great idea, though I'd just open it to everybody, and fuck what Stephen Hemsley and his polo buddies think about it.

[karynnj]

40. Dean was never in Congress and doesn't see the difficulties of budget reconciliation

The fact is there is a list that is on DU of the many things that happen immediately. The public option, even if it stays in the plan is not going to operational until long after 2010. This would be true if it passed under reconciliation of not.

I think Dean might be right that people 2010 may be tough, but I would bet that where the economy is will have more of an impact than the bill that will pass this year or early next year.

[madfloridian]

42. We really don't need a majority after all then.

I am beginning to see through all the excuses here about none of us knowing anything about anything.

I am tired of being blamed for wanting our party to use the majority.

The GOP used theirs unapologetically, and they never worried about what we thought.

Whenever any of us here speak up, it is implied we are not very smart.

I am tired of it.

[karynnj]

54. Look at the things the GOP passed

Many they passed with significant Democratic support. The credit card bill was fought hard, especially by Ted Kennedy. No one was a better legislator than he was. The reason it passed was that a significant number of Democrats voted for it each time it was offered. We passed the stimulus and the Budget because we were able to get a few Republicans.

There were things that Bush did not get social security reform and drilling at ANWR, because he could not win enough Democrats or (in the case of ANWR) keep all his Republicans.

I know he/she made you angry, but BzaDem had many good clear posts on this. There is something to be said for MAJOR bills to need 60. They make a huge change to the country and there is really little difference between 51/49 and 49/51. The real problem is the degree of polarization that is destroying how things work. The idea that big changes need a supermajority makes change hard, but it does it on both sides.

I doubt many would call you "not smart", I know I wouldn't.

[madfloridian]

56. Yes, it did make me angry to be talked down to like that.

And it angers me for us to keep excusing the fact that we are allowing the hard right move to continue.

Yes, it did anger me to be told I should be standing up here for the Democrats instead of speaking my mind.

And I am tired of it and tired of the excuses.

[karynnj]

59. I think it wrong for anyone to say that people saying anything should not do so

As to "allowing the hard right move to continue", I don't think that is what is happening. If the current bill gets passed, it will be the biggest expansion of healthcare since the 1960s. That is not a move to the right. The fact is that compared to the last 8 years, we have moved to the left. In fact, compared to the passed bills of the Clinton years, we have moved to the left.

I think what Reid did was to take the healthcare bills down to the state level and to include most of the definitions from the HELP bill (other than taking the exchange definition from Finance, but including the provision that the exchange could compile and disseminate information on the plans and like the MA connector, negotiate with the companies - something estimated to save 6% on premium costs in MA) and to taake the funding from Finance, while partially fixing somethings - like raising the definition of a cadillac plan to $23,000 from $21,000.

Dean himself was in favor of a public option with a state opt out, which is what the bill has. The biggest question is how to get the 3 shaky votes. It may be that Dean is concerned with future changes.

[VMI Dem]

47. So is Dean a good guy or bad guy now?

After saying this....

[madfloridian]

49. Are you DLC ish or PNHP ish

Because both ways it is all his fault. :eyes:

[slipslidingaway]

58. Sure, why not associate PNHP with the DLC :((( ......

:puke:

[yurbud]

52. Howard always reminds us why he scared the shit out of DLC & GOP

He wasn't on the corporate payroll but he doesn't come across as wimpy either.

He's a lefty who kicks ass and calls it straight.

He's not even that left, it just discomfits the corporate crowd that he doesn't take their graft and orders.

[Festivito]

55. I think we could show them A FIGHT.

I think people are tired of compromise politics as usual.

Enough realize that Republicans screwed US and they rid US of as many as they could, and here comes their next chance of ridding US of more.

[slipslidingaway]

57. Dean - House allows insurance companies to charge double for pre-existing conditions...

that is what he said in the video.

:shrug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

62. Still a Dr. Dean supporter here!

He is exactly correct! AGAIN!

[Major Hogwash]

63. It's time for ---- wait for it ---- reconciliation!

51 vote majority.

I can't believe these guys, they've got no guts.
Where's the fire in their belly?

Where's the old Delta that I used to love?
Huh?
Well, maybe you guys are going to sit around and take it, but not me!

[Triana]

64. They ought to listen to him. I wish he'd run again..

....'cause he'd get my vote over Obama.

[mzmolly]

65. I thought the next step WAS reconciliation?

:shrug:

[Major Hogwash]

67. Reid has no choice - reconciliation or failure!! People are dying for a lack of healthcare.

Don't give me any more excuses!!
Don't trash Dean for what he said - he is right!!

[Vidar]

68. K&R.

[mdmc]

69. "This was on Dylan" - what does that mean?

I know Bob Dylan has a radio program.. did he have Dean on?

[goodboy]

71. He's right (nt)