I pray that I'm wrong, but I suspect that this bill won't survive cloture. Nelson, Lincoln, and one or two others continue to hedge. Let's hope that Reid has Plan B in place -- reconciliation.

In a world where the Senate Majority Leader was a clever man - he would try to silence any debate about reconciliation before bringing it up.

Maybe Reid is much more clever than we all can imagine...

Actually Vokoban, if I were Reid, I would give ConservaDems two choices -- vote for cloture so that Dems can pass a strong public option, or vote against cloture forcing Dems to pass an even stronger public option via reconciliation.

"Actually Vokoban, if I were Reid, I would give ConservaDems two choices -- vote for cloture so that Dems can pass a strong public option, or vote against cloture forcing Dems to pass an even stronger public option via reconciliation."

Right, Chris. But would you do this in public?

I hear critics of HCR, like the former CBO lady IIRC on the latest stop-reform ad, say it adds so much more to the Fed debt. I wasn't aware we were going to borrow so much money for this, I thought it was to be almost entirely paid with fees, some new taxes etc. (And we'd have to pay someone for HC anyway.) So what is all this about "debt" coming from? How legit is this characterization? REM some critics call any earmarked future payments "debt" because we have to pay it out, even though it will be raised revenue and is not "borrowed" from lenders. (And even though of course, a similar amount will be paid out regardless of how definitively we now assert it will be paid then.) Isn't this a common distortion?

forcing Dems to pass an even stronger public option via reconciliation.

"Even stronger"?

You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the reconciliation process and refuse to learn anything about it.

Steve, are you saying that you expect even Olympia Snowe to join a filibuster against even starting the debate?

Lets see: Women under 50, Seniors over 65, Young folks, Small businesses, the Middle Class, and the ECONOMY will all be SCREWED if Obama/Pelosi/Reid get their Health Care Reform Bill passed. Women under 50 will be denied life saving mammograms via the government run rationing board who cares more about “cost effectiveness“ than saving peoples lives. Senior over 65 will have their Medicare cut by 500 billion which will result in devastating cuts to their services. Young folks will be FORCED to buy health insurance they can't afford at twice the cost it would be prior to government run Health Care Reform. Small businesses will be FORCED to pay for health care insurance they can't afford which will mean more layoffs. The Middle Class Health Care Insurance Premiums will all go up by 50% according to some studies. The US economy will collapse as taxes and deficit spending skyrockets as a result of all the big government spending programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and on top of that the biggest spending program of all, government run health care, all go bankrupt.

katherine of aragon ballroom: "You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the reconciliation process and refuse to learn anything about it."

Perhaps you should try supporting your false assertions rather than just vomiting on your keyboard.

James, James, James, it's even worse than that. We're also planning smallpox epidemics -- no treatment, of course, which we'll justify via the death panels -- for you and your friends in the GOP internment camps now being built.

In fact, if I were you, I'd get behind the plans for Thomson Correctional Center pronto, because every bed filled by a suspected terrorist is one less spot in which we can hold a brave political dissident and freedom fighter such as yourself. Until we raise your taxes and conscript your labor to build more camps, that is.

James - for one thing, you complain about cost-saving measures in the same breath (hand sweep, whatever) you complain about the cost. Can't have it both ways. And why would premiums go up unless the government *fails* to properly control the process, instead of because of a hands-off approach?

well, Chris, spamming half the threads with "One word: reconcilation" without having a good goddamn what you're talking about seems fairly vomitous to me. But, okay, here.

Start educating yourself.

Keep at it.

aragon--

Did you even bother to read your own links? They provided no information that isn't already well-known by me and anybody who has been following this issue closely -- if anything they support my case.

Howard Dean, Barak Obama (via Robert Gibbs), and others have indicated that reconciliation is a viable option that should be considered. Nobody is arguing it wouldn't be without hazards. The argument is that the result of reconciliation is likely to be significantly better than the trigger/co-op/opt-in compromise that is likely to come out of the Senate.

You disagree? Then keep wallowing in your proud ignorance while cheering the ConservaDems. I, on the other hand, am a liberal.

Depending on the length of the caucus meeting, Reid may or may not wrap up in time for the evening newscasts.

Sigh. Yet more evidence that Reid is desperately in need of a remedial course in modern politics. Why the hell isn't the meeting scheduled early enough to make sure that the results are the number one evening news story, rather than "the Democrats are having a meeting and arguing about it"?

Howard Dean, Barak [sic] Obama (via Robert Gibbs), and others have indicated that reconciliation is a viable option that should be considered.

Of course it should be considered. It's just that every time you spam about it, you treat it as a magic pill. It's not, and you rival the opt-out cheerleaders in your insistently blind refusal to consider its costs and limitations.

Nobody is arguing it wouldn't be without hazards.

Good. Then start recognizing that those hazards might include easily overturned legislation, 100s of procedural objections that require 60 votes to overcome, and a hell of a lot more in the end -- including, quite possibly, no public option at all.

I, on the other hand, am a liberal.

Brilliant. I hope you turned your head to a three-quarter profile, gazing soulfully into the middle distance, when you said that.

I'll just say this with a goofy smile and skip your ludicrous self-congratulation: I'm an outright lefty who know that parliamentary procedure sometime trumps one's fondest political desires.

We're probably going to have to use reconciliation. It'll hurt less if we're not willfully stupid about how it's likely to go.

Not spam. Advocacy. You're inability to differentiate between the two speaks volumes.

With regard to your "magic pill" and "willfully stupid about how it's likely to go" nonsense, you infer things never said or implied.

Since you agree that reconciliation should be considered, and since you now assert that it might be necessary, then we have nothing more to argue about.

I'm thrilled that you've decided, in fact, not to wallow in your ignorance. Sadly, I can't say the same about your arrogance.