U.S. politics 23

[Lightsnake]

Btw, where's DanteGabriel been?

[TerraPrime]

Dante is on hiatus on account of his NY/Xmas trip back home to spend time with his family. The regularly scheduled angry liberal program will resume upon his return.

[Shryke]

More than 80 percent of Democrats say they believe Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) should be stripped of his powerful chairmanship in the Senate if he ends up supporting a Republican filibuster of health care reform, according to a new poll.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/81-of-dems-want-lieberman_n_390797.html

[Tsavong Lah]

For those that want to see the benefits of the health care bill as is (sans public option and medicare buy-in), take a look at the following post by Nate Silver. It contains a pretty nifty graphic that shows how much of a difference the bill can make.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html

As I'm sure has been noted, Nate Silver has become THE go to guy for logical thought on just about everything. He is one guy that doesn't over-react like a lot of other leading progressive figures tend to.

[Commodore]

For those that want to see the benefits of the health care bill as is (sans public option and medicare buy-in), take a look at the following post by Nate Silver. It contains a pretty nifty graphic that shows how much of a difference the bill can make.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html

As I'm sure has been noted, Nate Silver has become THE go to guy for logical thought on just about everything. He is one guy that doesn't over-react like a lot of other leading progressive figures tend to.

He's not even considering the cost of care, merely what people will be asked to pay. That's the mindset that is bankrupting Medicare. Is Silver so blind as to not see that the subsidy is just an individual cost morphed into a collective cost?

The comments section gets it more than Silver does. Without a public option, this is nothing more than a mandated wealth transfer to insurance companies. Some of the wealth will come directly out of pocket, and some will come via a tax payer funded subsidy, sent directly to insurance companies.

This bill is beyond awful. The government gets more power and control, the insurance companies get more profit, and the individual gets screwed.

[Annelise]

Never let anyone tell you that you aren't reliable, Commodore.

[Annelise]

Looks like Illinois will get some of the Gitmo detainees: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQMISIgVxwNEPW9wPbw2QFvOfWHQD9CK0DGO0 They also get the associated jobs... *flips the bird again to Michigan Rep. Hoekstra*

[sologdin]

Isn't RICO a federal law?

yes.

but 18 USC sec. 1964 is a civil enforcement remedy for any person injured by a violation of the criminal statute (section 1962). the remedy is just plain awesome: treble damages, costs, and attorney fees. w00t!

[Annelise]

How to get rid of the filibuster (if you really want to):

It asks too much of senators--among the most self-interested of creatures--to approach the filibuster as though they were behind a veil of ignorance. They know all too well who would benefit (President Obama and the Democrats) and who would be harmed (Republicans and grandstanding centrists) were the filibuster suddenly to be amended or eliminated. It is naïve to think they might put this knowledge aside.

The passage of time, however, creates an opportunity to drape a veil over politicians’ eyes. There is no way Republican senators would agree to the immediate abolition of the filibuster. But what if the proposal on the table was to get rid of the filibuster in 2017? By then, even a potential second Obama term would have ended. Every sitting senator would have faced re-election at least once. And, most importantly, there is no way to know which party would be in the majority and which would be in the minority.

A debate now on whether to eliminate the filibuster in the future would transform senators’ decision-making calculus. The key questions would no longer be whether they enjoy the personal clout conferred by the filibuster, or whether it advances or threatens their parties’ agendas. The issues, instead, would be whether it makes sense for almost all Senate business to require a supermajority, whether 40 senators representing as little as 10 percent of the population should be able to block a bill, and whether the Constitution’s many checks and balances should be supplemented by yet another procedural obstacle. Many more senators likely would say no if self-interest and partisan advantage were, for the most part, removed from the equation.

[...]

A temporal veil of ignorance is thus a powerful tool for reforming any policy that is currently supported primarily out of self-interest. With changes to the status quo postponed until sometime in the future, erstwhile skeptics become free to think more objectively about proposals’ merits. The result could be not just a less dysfunctional Senate but also--as Rawls predicted--better public policy and a fairer democracy.

http://www.tnr.com/article/metro-policy/veil-thine-eyes

[The Marquis de Leech]

How to get rid of the filibuster (if you really want to):

http://www.tnr.com/article/metro-policy/veil-thine-eyes

There's also the nuclear option, of course.

[Watcher]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/81-of-dems-want-lieberman_n_390797.html

I want him stripped even if he doesn't filibuster. The man is destroying what remains of the health care bill to satisfy his ego. He is now attacking health care policies a few short months ago he supported. He is publicly saying he supports health care reform, but his actions of ripping the bill to shreds shows he is really against any type of reform and in the pocket of his states insurance industry.

[Swordfish]

I find it interesting that all the talk about reform reigning in cost has basically evaporated, and we're left with 'well, it's a little better than what we have now'.

As expected, they aren't capable of legislating this properly.

Unique snowflake indeed.

[Shryke]

I find it interesting that all the talk about reform reigning in cost has basically evaporated, and we're left with 'well, it's a little better than what we have now'.

As expected, they aren't capable of legislating this properly.

Unique snowflake indeed.

And yet the only reason it can't be done is because the Right is keeping it from happening.

[Swordfish]

And yet the only reason it can't be done is because the Right is keeping it from happening.

Levels of blatant partisanship and dedication to getting votes over doing what is right would definitely be one of the things that makes us a unique snowflake, and incapable of passing successful UHC. It was certainly 100% predictable.

Glad you are finally agreeing with me.

;)

[tzanth]

The most childish and obvious one being THIS gem here:

Where members of the Democratic Women's Caucus are drowned out while explaining how the health care bill would benefit women by House Republicans continually yelling "I object" over and over and over again in order to disrupt the proceedings .

It's seriously the most pathetic bullshit I've seen in ages.

Wow, just... wow. :stillsick:

[Swordfish]

If this bill passes will you consider it to be passage of UHC, just not successful passage?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

it's obvious that they are going to keep churning out legislation for years to come.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If this passes without any efforts to limit or control costs it's going to make the problem of spiraling health care costs worse not better.

[Shryke]

Tom Coburn ® objected to a Bernie Sanders amendment being debated without being read aloud. If one Senator objects, the clerk has to read the entire thing. The amendment is 700+ pages.

I'm not sure who is worse between Cobern doing this and Sanders not realizing that someone would do it. So almost the entire day of debate will now be occupied by a Senate Clerk reading a 700+ page amendment.

What was Sanders supposed to do?

I mean, this is exactly the kind of shit the GOP has been doing all year to make the government grind to a halt.

[davos]

I want him stripped even if he doesn't filibuster. The man is destroying what remains of the health care bill to satisfy his ego. He is now attacking health care policies a few short months ago he supported. He is publicly saying he supports health care reform, but his actions of ripping the bill to shreds shows he is really against any type of reform and in the pocket of his states insurance industry.

I shudder everytime I hear talk of stripping Lieberman. Who in their right mind would want such a thing? Droopey naked-the horror is almost to much to even consider. :P

In all seriousness though my understanding is that Senate democratic leadership doesn't feel it can afford to punish Lieberman no matter how much it wants to do so. The fear is that if they take away his power he will run to the Republicans. Even though this might be making official what is functionally a reality at this point there are still Issues Lieberman would apparently be willing to vote with the Dems on. If they loose him completely they will loose the 60 votes need to break the filibuster. Given that the Republicians have shown a willingness to filibuster with abandon the dems would loose even a chance of getting anything remotely contencious through. Basically Lieberman has them by the balls and can squeeze whenever he wants. Well, he would have them by the balls, except apparently this bunch of democrats doesn't have any.

[lokisnow]

I shudder everytime I hear talk of stripping Lieberman. Who in their right mind would want such a thing? Droopey naked-the horror is almost to much to even consider. :P

In all seriousness though my understanding is that Senate democratic leadership doesn't feel it can afford to punish Lieberman no matter how much it wants to do so. The fear is that if they take away his power he will run to the Republicans. Even though this might be making official what is functionally a reality at this point there are still Issues Lieberman would apparently be willing to vote with the Dems on. If they loose him completely they will loose the 60 votes need to break the filibuster. Given that the Republicians have shown a willingness to filibuster with abandon the dems would loose even a chance of getting anything remotely contencious through. Basically Lieberman has them by the balls and can squeeze whenever he wants. Well, he would have them by the balls, except apparently this bunch of democrats doesn't have any.

can a senator filibuster multiple bills at once or is their a maximum of 100 ongoing filibusters at a given time.

if a senator can filibuster as many bills as they want, the dems should just start announcing that each piece of legislation is filibustered until there is no more business on the senate floor. if the republicans are using a weapon, it neutralizes the weapon and greatly lessens the influence of centrist repubs and dems and people like lieberman. the dems could use the work stoppage (which presumably they would willfully initiate) to rally the forces to bring massive national and local pressure on the recalcitrant senators.