Reconciliation's History with Health Care Reform

[Lunar]

...with Reconciliation?

[Brittain33]

The use of reconciliation to pass health care reform has been consistent.

[Torie]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretched, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

[Franzl]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretch, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

yes, but it ultimately makes the Senate more democratic by allowing majority rule.

[Bo]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretch, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

yes, but it ultimately makes the Senate more democratic by allowing majority rule.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Lunar]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretch, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

yes, but it ultimately makes the Senate more democratic by allowing majority rule.

Boxer represents, what, almost 70 times the number of people that Enzi does?  

To be the complete devil's advocate.  There are some who say raw majority rule is undemocratic, and I would agree with that.  If 51% of people could vote to enslave 49%, that would ultimately betray democratic values.  Our health care system is the same way, but with more potential slavery if the Democrats end up passing a piece of legislation that might affect the healthcare policies of 10% of Americans insurance plans.  I mean, handcuff me right here and haul me to the fields Obama, if that's what you want to do.

[Vepres]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretch, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

So many commas, so choppy, GAH!

Oh, and I agree.

[Lunar]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretch, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

I'm not sure if it will help kill or weaken the filibuster at all.  This process is limited in its abilities and can only happen once a year, and can't affect one of the most abused filibuster targets: random nominees no one real cares about for no reason (outside of appeasing your campaign donors).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I said yes, but let me elaborate a bit.  I think most of the uses of reconciliation for health care bills have been abuses of the reconcilation process; however, I've had a phrase I often use: "Abusing the system is using the system" - basically, if you can do it on a technicality, it may be seen as "dirty," but your opponent will probably do the same, just on his/her side of the issue.

[Хahar 🤔]

No. If they get 51 votes, there is nothing unfair at all.

[Lief 🗽]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretch, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

It's really not though. This is in keeping with the historical role of reconciliation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, it must be COBA, not COBRA, since reconciliation has never been used for health care.

[Torie]

Ya, the process is being abused, and stretch, but it will help kill, or at least weaken,  the filibuster, so I am OK with it. So I vote know, although I agree with some of the "yes" vote.

It's really not though. This is in keeping with the historical role of reconciliation.

I don't agree with that really, particularly when you see what is done via reconciliation, and the howls that will ensue. At that point, perhaps you will change your mind, or perhaps not. In any event the anger will have an impact on the half life of the filibuster, or reconciliation will slowly eat the filibuster alive. At least I hope that is the case.

[Padfoot]

The Senate is completely undemocratic in nature and the filibuster only exacerbates the problem.  IMO, the filibuster should only be used when attempting to pass a bill that has been soundly rejected by the House.  Any bill passed by the House should not be subject to the filibuster.

[Lunar]

No. If they get 51 votes, there is nothing unfair at all.

Well, to again play the devil's advocate (but more seriously this time), isn't it a little unfair of a process?  I'm not 100% sure on the details, but I -think- there are limited abilities to request modifications on a reconciliation budget piece of legislation (I could be wrong).  If that were the case, then isn't forcing legislators to vote on a mediocre bill unfair when you could get even more support for another?  Actually, forget that point I was trying to make, they've already had plenty of chances to pass a better bill.  Nothing to see here, move along.

[Lunar]

I mean, basically, the point of this thread is that all major health care pieces of legislation for the pas 20 years have been passed using this process.  

a) The main bill wouldn't be passed using this process.  It has already passed the Senate and needs to pass the House using ordinary procedure and signed by the president.

b) The bill that WOULD be passed using this process would be a supplementary, but substantial, bill modifying the original proposal.  The Senate Bill obviously contains huge flaws, and was originally intended to be a negotiating starting point in the conference committee, rather than an actual piece of legislation.  Most notably: the pork for Nebraska.  Perhaps a weak public option that 1-5% of Americans would qualify for would be instituted, but the main crux of the bill is something that would be passed via ordinary procedure.