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

[Ronnie]

Will they lose seats in the next elections?  Will Obama lose popularity?

[Lief 🗽]

No. No one cares about process (except the people in DC). A majority of Americans probably don't even understand what the nuclear option is.

[Rowan]

No it's not smart if they intend to hold the house in 2010.

[anvi]

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If the alternative is no bill, then the Democrats will have no choice but to pursue reconciliation.
That is of course if they haven't suddenly become nostalgic of their life in minority.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I greatly approve of any plan to nuke healthcare.

Oh, I'm sorry what are we talking about again?

[Padfoot]

Democrats should definitely go "nuclear."  With only a few exceptions, Republicans are showing no signs that they want any health care reform so why should Democrats even try to engage them?  All the Republicans have done is mislead and misinformed the public about what the Democrats are trying to do.  If the Democrats would actually stand up and just pass the bill with members of their own party then they can make the Republicans look like jackasses when everyone realizes there are no "death panels" and all the other bullsh**t conservatives have been spewing about.  Once the Democrats wake up and realize they don't need any GOP votes to pass a decent bill then everything will be fine.

[JSojourner]

Democrats should definitely go "nuclear."  With only a few exceptions, Republicans are showing no signs that they want any health care reform so why should Democrats even try to engage them?  All the Republicans have done is mislead and misinformed the public about what the Democrats are trying to do.  If the Democrats would actually stand up and just pass the bill with members of their own party then they can make the Republicans look like jackasses when everyone realizes there are no "death panels" and all the other bullsh**t conservatives have been spewing about.  Once the Democrats wake up and realize they don't need any GOP votes to pass a decent bill then everything will be fine.

I agree.  But it won't happen.  Unless Obama is holding some cards I am unaware of, this administration is behaving like a castrated animal.

I give the GOP and likeminded pundits credit:  they are the best of us when it comes to lying, obfuscating, misrepresenting and fear-mongering an issue into oblivion.  I would hope that Obama and other Democrats would take every opportunity to point out, over the next few years, how the lack of a health care bill and the complete clusterphuck of a health care system we presently have can be laid squarely at the feet of Republicans and some blue dogs.

Of course, he won't.  That's not playing nice. <sigh>

[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.

[War on Want]

It is the smartest of all availible options.

[anvi]

Well, like I said, I want to have a public option, I want to have that as much as anybody.  But I think the Democrats will be unintentionally colluding with DeMint's agenda of making health care reform Obama's "Waterloo" if they resort to the nuclear option to get the public option.  Neither Obama nor the Democratic congress were elected on a single issue like health care reform; they were elected to get us out of Iraq, restore America's image and standing in the world, deal with the economic crisis, and, specifically, not to practice Bush/Rove 51-49 ideologically partisan politics in the country, which, as we've all learned, doesn't work very well anyway.  To use the nuclear option to push through something as huge and costly as the public option is very, very politically risky in the middle of an economic crisis, it takes a shot over the moon on one agenda item at a time when lots of different things have to be done to get the country back on track.  That's why I think both the majority and the president come out better if they score, on their own initiative, modest but tangible improvements in health insurance reform now, get other necessary stuff done in the remainder of their terms, hold on to their majorities and get the rest of health care reform, with the public option, accomplished when the country is on an upswing rather than still struggling to recover.  This isn't about giving up on the public option at all, it's about waiting for a more opportune moment to get it passed in a political environment where the public can more easily get on board with it.  

[Frodo]

Yes -given that Republicans have apparently not been negotiating in good faith, it makes perfect sense to ditch them.  As I recall, we won a mandate last November -why not use it?  

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes -given that Republicans have apparently not been negotiating in good faith, it makes perfect sense to ditch them.  As I recall, we won a mandate last November -why not use it?  

Because He's President Of All Americans and He Needs To Listen To What The Other Side Has To Say.

[Frodo]

Yes -given that Republicans have apparently not been negotiating in good faith, it makes perfect sense to ditch them.  As I recall, we won a mandate last November -why not use it?  

Because He's President Of All Americans and He Needs To Listen To What The Other Side Has To Say.

He may be president of the entire country, but it doesn't mean he has to listen to what the other side has to say if their motive is to derail his presidency, which he won decisively fair and square -which is more than what I can say of his predecessor. 

[Ronnie]

Yes -given that Republicans have apparently not been negotiating in good faith, it makes perfect sense to ditch them.  As I recall, we won a mandate last November -why not use it?  

Because He's President Of All Americans and He Needs To Listen To What The Other Side Has To Say.

He may be president of the entire country, but it doesn't mean he has to listen to what the other side has to say if their motive is to derail his presidency, which he won decisively fair and square -which is more than what I can say of his predecessor. 

Plus, it would go against everything he stood for during the campaign.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes -given that Republicans have apparently not been negotiating in good faith, it makes perfect sense to ditch them.  As I recall, we won a mandate last November -why not use it?  

Because He's President Of All Americans and He Needs To Listen To What The Other Side Has To Say.

He may be president of the entire country, but it doesn't mean he has to listen to what the other side has to say if their motive is to derail his presidency, which he won decisively fair and square -which is more than what I can say of his predecessor. 

Plus, it would go against everything he stood for during the campaign.

But it'll help him get reelected.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Plus, it would go against everything he stood for during the campaign.

I don't remember any campaign promise to cooperate with nutjobs and unreconstructed far-right wingers.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

There will be no bill passed without reconciliation, as the blue dogs will kill any bill with a public option, and the progressives will kill any bill without a public option.

So yes, Democrats should go nuclear. And if that means we'll do a bit worse in 2010... well what's the point of holding congress if it's the Republicans that get their will through in the end anyway?

[MasterJedi]

No, it'll hurt them come 2010 in the House. Hopefully nothing is passed until then however.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

No. No one cares about process (except the people in DC). A majority of Americans probably don't even understand what the nuclear option is.

Tell that to the Republicans who successfully campaigned based on judges in the south in 2002. Process can be easily boiled down into talking points for your typical partisan midterm voter.

Whatever inter-Democratic Party compromise gets reached will probably be a relative dud so far as reform goes, so they'd probably be better off having the lemon get branded a bi-partisan compromise for cover.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, it's smart.  The Pubbies should have used it when they controlled both houses.

[War on Want]

No. No one cares about process (except the people in DC). A majority of Americans probably don't even understand what the nuclear option is.

Tell that to the Republicans who successfully campaigned based on judges in the south in 2002. Process can be easily boiled down into talking points for your typical partisan midterm voter.

Whatever inter-Democratic Party compromise gets reached will probably be a relative dud so far as reform goes, so they'd probably be better off having the lemon get branded a bi-partisan compromise for cover.

I don't think any red avatars here give a flying fuck about the Blue Dogs anymore.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't think any red avatars here give a flying fuck about the Blue Dogs anymore.

Well that's a bit extreme......they're gonna need the blue dogs to get everything else done, but your frustration is understandable.....

[War on Want]

I don't think any red avatars here give a flying fuck about the Blue Dogs anymore.

Well that's a bit extreme......they're gonna need the blue dogs to get everything else done, but your frustration is understandable.....

Well I obviously support funding their reelection campaigns and giving them full support in 2010 but personally I don't really care that much if they lose quite a bit of seats, except for Walt Minnick, because I couldn't stand to have a far-right nutjob representing me.

[Torie]

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.