Is it smart for the Democrats to pursue the "nuclear option" on healthcare?

[Person Man]

I'm coming to the conclusion that, while the public option is the right policy, now is not the right time.  There is dwindling support in the Senate for such a plan (Lieberman just bolted on it too), we are looking at a ramp-up in Afghanistan, exploding deficits, and an economy whose labor-market and housing markets still have a ways to go before recovery.  The Democratic party risks unnecessarily tearing itself to pieces over the public option at the moment, which would spell a bad moon rising for the midterms.

I think they should pass a bill with the health insurance reform provisions they have now, which includes mandates for coverage, guaranteed issue, reformed incentives on testing, preventive care and primary-care physician training, and a number of other genuinely good things in the current version.  I actually think the Democrats should not sign on to the co-op seed grants in the current Senate Finance bill because co-ops are a bad idea and it would be a waste of $4-10 billion for nothing.  I think the first step would be to pass this health insurance and incentives legislation now, without the public option or co-ops, and such a bill would get a pretty substantial victory in the Senate.

While doing this, the Democrats and the president can take a very public "we're not done on the public option, it's coming again to a theatre near you" attitude.  The next time they raise it, either right after the midterms or after an Obama reelection in '12, hopefully when the economy has improved, they should reintroduce the public option again and bundle some tort reform with it to draw some bipartisan support, and make the push again.

Sometimes, being right isn't enough; timing can be more important.

Hmmm...can we afford to wait, though? We need to seize the hour and understand that we may be wiped out in 2010, regardless of our efforts. If we succeed and get wiped out, at least we will still have Obama there to veto any counter-reform....and after this, we will have more of an incentive to do "moderate hero" things like Immigration Reform, Welfare Reform and Social Security Reform. We would also have more credibility to nominate justices to the Supreme Court if a vacancy arrives. What can wait until after the next election is cap and trade.

[Person Man]

Well, I think we have satisfied the Just War doctrine so to speak...so...

By the nuclear option, do we mean eliminating the filibuster or the shoe horning in of the health care bill into the budget reconciliation?  If the latter, I don't see how that will work since it takes a two thirds vote (I think it is two thirds, but 60 votes anyway) to override any objection that the health care bill is not appropriate to include in a revenue bill.

Well, if we can get what little in we can this way, we could probably put in what will beat a fillibuster and then reconcile from there. If that doesn't work, we will have to kill the fillibuster.

[Person Man]

Well, Bush did got a lot done on 51% of the vote. He was able to maintain the occupation of Iraq, create a completely center-right Supreme Court (though not right-wing), block stem cell research and allow states to enforce their laws restricting abortions to minors.

The only thing that was defeated was trying to sell Social Security....and if it wasn't for Schaivo and Katrina, he probably could have succeeded.

Obama has 53% of the vote and 58% of Congress (Bill Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote and 59% of Congress and re-elected with 48% of the vote and 46% of Congress). The biggest total mandate since Ronald Reagan had 60% of the vote and 50% of Congress. As such, his combined mandate is the biggest we seen in a while.