Democrats Bends Over (Health Care)

[Elfdart]

The Democrats don't need 60 votes. They just need some balls:

[Simon_Jester]

That was pretty much my point. If they had 60 votes, that would be sweet, but they really don't. And trying to pretend that they do just makes them look pathetic, and gives them an "easy" way out of taking risks and responsibility, rather than having to show the guts to do it some other way.

Take away the pretense that they can have a supermajority without sacrificing their ability to govern, and they'll either:
-Stand up and work with the normal majority they really do have, or
-Lie down and whimper.

I'm still rooting for (1), but I'm afraid and reluctant to expect it.

[KrauserKrauser]

The Dem's reaction is even funnier when you look historically at the much more radical legislation that was passed without having to worry about filibuster proof majorities. Last I checked the Civil Rights act was fairly unpopular and GASP there was no supermajority present!

Ho Shit! What did it require that they are currently lacking? Oh that's right, LEADERSHIP, POLITICAL WILL and a non-panty waist President actually able to accomplish something. Say what you want about LBJ but he had the experience and connections to actually get shit done. Maybe that is the price you must pay when electing a politician with less than a hundred fucking days working in a national office.

Get what you pay for, etc...

[Darth Wong]

That was pretty much my point. If they had 60 votes, that would be sweet, but they really don't. And trying to pretend that they do just makes them look pathetic, and gives them an "easy" way out of taking risks and responsibility, rather than having to show the guts to do it some other way.

Take away the pretense that they can have a supermajority without sacrificing their ability to govern, and they'll either:
-Stand up and work with the normal majority they really do have, or
-Lie down and whimper.

I'm still rooting for (1), but I'm afraid and reluctant to expect it.

The threat of a Republican filibuster is a distraction from the real problem which is that they can't even get their own people to vote for it. It's because they have so many assholes like Lieberman and Baucus who are nothing more than paid insurance industry whores.

[Darth Wong]

The Dem's reaction is even funnier when you look historically at the much more radical legislation that was passed without having to worry about filibuster proof majorities. Last I checked the Civil Rights act was fairly unpopular and GASP there was no supermajority present!

Ho Shit! What did it require that they are currently lacking? Oh that's right, LEADERSHIP, POLITICAL WILL and a non-panty waist President actually able to accomplish something. Say what you want about LBJ but he had the experience and connections to actually get shit done. Maybe that is the price you must pay when electing a politician with less than a hundred fucking days working in a national office.

Get what you pay for, etc...

Simpleton expressions like "getting shit done" or "growing a pair of balls" are pretty satisfying to say, but how exactly would you or anyone else "get shit done" when half of your OWN PARTY doesn't want socialized health care any more than the Republicans do, and the American public in general is so fucking mindless that they eat up all of the anti-socialized health care propaganda hook, line, and sinker?

[KrauserKrauser]

Are you saying that the Civil Rights Act was comparably an easier bill to pass? If nothing else the opposition was far more violently opposed to it but LBJ was able to use his experience in congress to actually get it passed. Obama by comparison has done diddly shit, or at least has been able to accomplish diddlyshit. I am stipulating that another reason for this is Obamas inexperience and extremely short tenure in National politics.

[SirNitram]

Are you saying that the Civil Rights Act was comparably an easier bill to pass? If nothing else the opposition was far more violently opposed to it but LBJ was able to use his experience in congress to actually get it passed. Obama by comparison has done diddly shit, or at least has been able to accomplish diddlyshit. I am stipulating that another reason for this is Obamas inexperience and extremely short tenure in National politics.

I am stipulating that this is a direct outcome of different rules: The Civil Rights act passed when a filibuster was something you talked about constantly, and then there was a vote. Due to a rules change in 1975, one need only insist on Cloture and bing! 60 votes required. This is why a sensible person sick of this would be pestering every dem senator and candidate for it to immediately change the rules, say, require only 50 votes to proceed to a vote, but requiring 100 thirty-minute slots, consequetively, one alloted to each senator, after the vote passes. Everyone gets 30 minutes to themselves to yackity yack so they can't complain about lack of debate.

[bobalot]

Are you saying that the Civil Rights Act was comparably an easier bill to pass? If nothing else the opposition was far more violently opposed to it but LBJ was able to use his experience in congress to actually get it passed. Obama by comparison has done diddly shit, or at least has been able to accomplish diddlyshit. I am stipulating that another reason for this is Obamas inexperience and extremely short tenure in National politics.

The civil rights act had far broader support in both parties than banking and healthcare reform has today. The civil rights act passed with 70% of the senate voting for it. Today, none of the Republicans will vote for anything the Democrats put forward in healthcare reform despite numerous compromises and concessions. Along with "Blue Dog Democrats", the opposition to any sort of effective reform rises to 45%-50% of the senate.

Voting on the Civil Rights Act (1964)

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%-29%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

The only group that came out heavily against in were the dixiecrats, who now make up a lot of today's modern Republicans.

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

[Master of Ossus]

Look. As a theoretical matter, you're right. Good tort reform can exist; it's possible.

As a practical matter, ANY tort reform we see on a national level in the US is likely to either be spearheaded by the Republicans, or to be something specifically designed to appeal to them.

Only because Democrats have studiously avoided tort reform as a whole, and have avoided including any serious tort reform as a part of their healthcare initiatives.

Either way, it's not going to end as well as rational tort reform would. Too much of the impetus behind it will come from people whose real political motive is "I need some fake reform I can present to the public as a change for the better while actually benefiting the companies whose lobbyists I am dependent on."

If Democrats took a serious look at tort reform, they would probably find that it's less controversial than the rest of their healthcare package. Even if it wouldn't be a big enough bargaining chip to get any Republicans onboard, at least it would be helpful as a stop-gap measure while they can't pass their current legislation because they only now control 59% of the Senate and that's allegedly not enough votes to accomplish anything.

[Serafine666]

The threat of a Republican filibuster is a distraction from the real problem which is that they can't even get their own people to vote for it. It's because they have so many assholes like Lieberman and Baucus who are nothing more than paid insurance industry whores.

One of those things that conservative talkshow people and some Republicans relish pointing out. They are regularly accused of obstructing reform (which is undoubtedly true) but so long as the Democrats have dissent in their own party, Republicans can cheerfully say "our votes aren't required to get you a majority; what's wrong with YOUR party, Democrats?" Or, rather, this could have been an exchange before it became possible for Republicans to use the filibuster to block a vote; now all they need to do is knock enough heads together in their party to hold the line.