Two quick queries:
Did the Democrats actually put it to a vote?
Did the Republicans actually try a filibuster?
If the answer to both is no, to me it would then seem that the filibuster is just an excuse for inactivity.
They have to vote for cloture before they can put it up for a vote, so that’s not really the right question. The “modern” filibuster is based on the vote for cloture, not on actually continuing the debate.
First off, they never proposed UHC so the op question doesn’t make sense. Second, the party is heavily represented by labor union voters who do not their health care screwed up.
Dominate? Really? Other points of view simply aren’t getting much attention?
And if the Dems’ idea was to put forward a UHC plan that could pass only if Beck and his ilk would not oppose it, their mission was a complete waste of time and political capital.
Which is a really a lame way of running parliamentary procedure – if you want to filibuster, then filibuster!
Did any major pieces of Bush-era (or Reagan-Era for that matter) policy get killed by the 60-40 rule?
And yet, both parties seem to think it best to leave it as it is.
I’ll leave that for someone with a better memory than I have. The major policies I remember that Bush tried unsuccessfully to get through Congress weren’t all too popular with his own party-- Social Security reform and Immigration reform.
my bold
Was it really a year? Franken was delayed seating until July, and there was a month between Kennedy’s death and the naming of an interim. So wasn’t it more like 4-5 months?
I actually think the problem is more fundamental. UHC has been tough to pass because there isn’t a wide demand for it from the public in the present environment. Yes, health care coverage is a major issue for this country because of its rising costs and people left out in the cold without coverage. However, the latest numbers showed about 16% of the population are without coverage. So we’re talking about 84% of the public with no big axe to grind about their insurance today. I think in a better economy when people can be less concerned about themselves (holding on to their jobs, paying their bills) there would have been less resistance to helping those less fortunate in their insurance coverage. I just think that the present administration picked the wrong time to push this legislation. First fix the economy, then let’s go after health care. And trying to link the two problems didn’t help either. Of course I also understand the Democratic mentality behind pushing hard for UHC this year – “With the White House and such majorities in both houses of Congress, this is the perfect time to get UHC done!” This mentality also led to the arrogance of doing deals and holding hearings behind closed doors and essentially leaving the Republicans out of the discussion. All wrong tactics. Hindsight is everything.
No, most of the public supported it; about 80% as I recall. Until the Democrats let it be turned into a joke and a handout to the insurance companies.
Health care is a burden on the economy; our present system is a wasteful luxury driven by greed and ideology.
Oh, nonsense. They sucked up to the Republicans relentlessly; that was much of their problem, trying to compromise with enemies who have no interest in compromise, and no concern for the welfare of the country ( especially under a Democrat ). The Democrats weren’t arrogant; they were spineless, cowardly grovellers.
But Obama did let this happen. This is where leadership issues in the Dem party are coming from. Obama left it to Reid and Pelosi to keep the party in line, and Reid failed miserably. Now he is probably going to lose his seat in the Senate in November. Why wasn’t Obama slaping some of the Dems around? Or Dean?
Let me try this again. In the years 2008-10 the Dems didn’t try to pass UHC or claim they wanted to, as a matter of fact. Moreover, they don’t want to pass UHC if given the opportunity. They don’t want to live in a world where UHC magically happens. They are against UHC. If the Reps wanted to usher in an era of UHC the Dems would vote it down and condemn them.
Get it?
Sure. There were 40 Republicans opposing it, and about 3 Democrats/independents (Lieberman, Conrad, Baucus). For the sake of argument, I’ll also say that there were probably about 2 more Democrats who supported it only tepidly, possibly because of attached pork, and count them in the opposition category, too. That looks to me like the blame goes about 89% Republican, 9% Democrat, 2% Independent.
The Dems started with UHC. When they were wooing a few Repubs like Snowe, they said they could not vote for a bill with single payer. The Dems felt it was important to have them on board. They watered the bill down several times hoping to make the bill more non-partisan. Then of course they were lying all along. They never would step out from total party rule for any important bill.
I thought it was when the Democrats kicked him out of the caucus. Oh, wait …
Dear Og, Shodan, can’t you at least *pretend *once in awhile? :rolleyes:
Nation's Largest Union: Change Health Care Bill Or Else | HuffPost Latest News As always ,your hatred of the working class shows. The unions are now less than 7 percent of the workers. They do not have a single voice. And, you are wrong again.
My hatred of the working class? I AM the working class you pompous jerk. I haven’t wavered from a desire to see health care reform pass.
I specifically said union voters for a reason. The people who actually do the voting do not want their insurance destroyed by a public option. If labor was in favor of this then the Democratic party (with a majority vote) wouldn’t be hiding in the tall grass over it. Their constituents want reform based around private options.
Makes sense - health insurance is the unions’ strongest selling point. If everyone gets medical coverage, why join a union?
Interestingly, one of the first steps the Israeli government under Rabin took in order to implement true UHC in the early 1990’s was to severly weaken the unions. This despite the fact that they were a Labor Party stronghold.
Irrelevant. The insurance companies have more money than the unions. And that’s what matters, not the opinion of voters. If 100 million ordinary people want A, and ten rich men want B, then B is what happens in America.
And again; most Democrats support a public option. The Democrats have been defying their constituency in order to pander to the insurance industry and grovel to the Republicans.
Insurance companies don’t vote. People with jobs and insurance vote. Using your logic the Republicans would win every election. Whether you like it or not, votes count.
To an onlooker it really does seem like a talented amateur sports team going up against a team of not as talented but professional veterans. Unfortunately the amateurs only win in movies.