Biden Lifts Health Care Plan From Insurance Lobbyists

[Broomstick]

The first step was getting rid of Trump.

I agree Biden is less than ideal, but that's who we have to work with.

[Napoleon the Clown]

As expected.

Tb, my hopes for this ticket were that he would have to step down after a year or so and Harris might steer a bit further left than he would...
Yeah, I know...
But it is more plausible than Biden even leaning slightly to the left.

He's showing signs of going a bit further left than I necessarily expected, but we'll see how he actually governs over the course of his term. He's at least not an outright arsonist, so that's an improvement over any Republican.

Regardless of how far left Biden does shift, there's still Congress to contend with. Dems might hold the majority in the House and Senate, but Blue Dogs are still chomping at the bit to slow progress. Realistically speaking, Biden and Bernie would have had very similar results simply by merit of a POTUS having finite authority and neither seeming inclined to see the limit of the expanse of executive power.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

As expected.

Tb, my hopes for this ticket were that he would have to step down after a year or so and Harris might steer a bit further left than he would...
Yeah, I know...
But it is more plausible than Biden even leaning slightly to the left.

He's showing signs of going a bit further left than I necessarily expected, but we'll see how he actually governs over the course of his term. He's at least not an outright arsonist, so that's an improvement over any Republican.

Regardless of how far left Biden does shift, there's still Congress to contend with. Dems might hold the majority in the House and Senate, but Blue Dogs are still chomping at the bit to slow progress. Realistically speaking, Biden and Bernie would have had very similar results simply by merit of a POTUS having finite authority and neither seeming inclined to see the limit of the expanse of executive power.

I think this bears emphasizing. The Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are whisper-thin. In the House, the Democrats have a margin of just ten seats (out of 435) in the House. In the Senate, they have a sometimes one/sometimes zero/sometimes -10 seat margin. Vice-President Harris only gets a vote when the Senate deadlocks 50-50. However, to avoid legislative filibuster, one needs sixty votes to advance most legislation.

So for any significant piece of legislation, not only can Biden not afford any defections from the Senate Democratic Caucus, he also needs ten Republicans. The Democrats can invoke the so-called "Nuclear Option," completely eliminating the filibuster, but there's very little actual appetite to do this.

[LaCroix]

Bring it on, I say - let the Republicans read the telephonebook for hours to prevent relief checks - and broadcast it... Lets see if they are willing to threaten filibuster if they actually have to DO it, and be seen.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Bring it on, I say - let the Republicans read the telephonebook for hours to prevent relief checks - and broadcast it... Lets see if they are willing to threaten filibuster if they actually have to DO it, and be seen.

Remember that this is the same pack of clowns who refused Merrick Garland a hearing for eight months just so Trump would have a chance to put an arch-conservative on the Supreme Court, and who (thorough blatant obstructionism) forced Obama to rule through executive action. This is also the same pack of clowns who've convinced their constituents that COVID isn't a real thing, and that the biggest threat to America is Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility (and TEH ILEEGULLZ.)

Unfortunately, I can imagine that Republicans may be more than happy to take you up on that. After all, they've learned that obstructing the Democratic agenda is a perfectly viable way of playing to their base; and their base is, increasingly, all they care about.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Bring it on, I say - let the Republicans read the telephonebook for hours to prevent relief checks - and broadcast it... Lets see if they are willing to threaten filibuster if they actually have to DO it, and be seen.

Why do you think that would be a bad thing for them? Their base will eat up every second of it, and believe every lie the Republicans tell about it. This isn't 2002, there is no accountability for Republicans anymore from within the party.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Bring it on, I say - let the Republicans read the telephonebook for hours to prevent relief checks - and broadcast it... Lets see if they are willing to threaten filibuster if they actually have to DO it, and be seen.

Ah, I see you are under the impression that Republicans plan for free and fair elections to be a thing. They are not. Voter disenfranchisement is a huge factor in why they're even viable right now. The other factor is that they people who do vote for them either care more about their taxes or about making sure there's someone beneath them that doesn't improve their lot in life. Keep in mind somewhere in the neighborhood of 74 million people voted for Trump is spite of the fact that his grotesque mishandling of the pandemic had cost America somewhere in the neighborhood of 300k lives (officially) as of the election. Republicans gained seats in the House. Over 100 Republican members of Congress openly attempted to invalidate an election. Optics do not matter to Republicans because of voter suppression and a voter base that is, frankly, evil.

[Ralin]

Why do you think that would be a bad thing for them? Their base will eat up every second of it, and believe every lie the Republicans tell about it. This isn't 2002, there is no accountability for Republicans anymore from within the party.

Could fire up Democrat voters against them. And would physically inconvenience them to a degree many of them might not be willing or able to tolerate.

[bilateralrope]

Bring it on, I say - let the Republicans read the telephonebook for hours to prevent relief checks - and broadcast it... Lets see if they are willing to threaten filibuster if they actually have to DO it, and be seen.

Why do you think that would be a bad thing for them? Their base will eat up every second of it, and believe every lie the Republicans tell about it. This isn't 2002, there is no accountability for Republicans anymore from within the party.

It makes it harder for people to blame the Democrats for stuff not getting done when everyone gets to see Republicans blocking it by reading the phonebook for hours at a time instead of doing something that looks productive.

That might not be enough to cause any meaningful change, but I can't see how forcing the Republicans to do their obstruction in public will hurt.

[LaCroix]

Ok, so abiding by the 60 votes filibuster and never getting anything voted on in the Senate will be better, how?

You are under the assumption that there is a way to get 60 votes, somehow. Newsflash - they will block everythng and tell the people the Democrats are lazy and do nothing. Hardly any modern day Republican will EVER agree to any form of compromise, big chance of getting ten of them or getting MCConnell to back anything that is not 100% GOP party line.

Let them at least stand there and have to do something to block legislature and have to openly oppose the things that are brought there, just so people can see that things are getting done by the Dems and it is the GOP who is blocking everything out of principle... Hard to say Dems are doing nothing if everyone sees them bringing bill after bill to the floor, only to have to listen to the AT&T top ten surnames for hours...

If nothing gets done, I at least want to see some old folks having to talk themselves to exhaustion and permanent loss of voice to stop it...

[Ralin]

Ok, so abiding by the 60 votes filibuster and never getting anything voted on in the Senate will be better, how?

You are under the assumption that there is a way to get 60 votes, somehow. Newsflash - they will block everythng and tell the people the Democrats are lazy and do nothing. Hardly any modern day Republican will EVER agree to any form of compromise, big chance of getting ten of them or getting MCConnell to back anything that is not 100% GOP party line.

Let them at least stand there and have to do something to block legislature and have to openly oppose the things that are brought there, just so people can see that things are getting done by the Dems and it is the GOP who is blocking everything out of principle... Hard to say Dems are doing nothing if everyone sees them bringing bill after bill to the floor, only to have to listen to the AT&T top ten surnames for hours...

If nothing gets done, I at least want to see some old folks having to talk themselves to exhaustion and permanent loss of voice to stop it...

I don't disagree with any of this. But wouldn't it be simpler to just...get rid of the goddamn filibuster?

[LaCroix]

Ok, so abiding by the 60 votes filibuster and never getting anything voted on in the Senate will be better, how?

You are under the assumption that there is a way to get 60 votes, somehow. Newsflash - they will block everythng and tell the people the Democrats are lazy and do nothing. Hardly any modern day Republican will EVER agree to any form of compromise, big chance of getting ten of them or getting MCConnell to back anything that is not 100% GOP party line.

Let them at least stand there and have to do something to block legislature and have to openly oppose the things that are brought there, just so people can see that things are getting done by the Dems and it is the GOP who is blocking everything out of principle... Hard to say Dems are doing nothing if everyone sees them bringing bill after bill to the floor, only to have to listen to the AT&T top ten surnames for hours...

If nothing gets done, I at least want to see some old folks having to talk themselves to exhaustion and permanent loss of voice to stop it...

I don't disagree with any of this. But wouldn't it be simpler to just...get rid of the goddamn filibuster?

You can't get rid of it, as it is a procedural thing that they just keep talking ... you can get rid of the 60 votes gentlemens agreement that you don't even bring something to the floor unless you have at least 60 votes (which means that you already have cloture, which means that a vote can be forced without allowing a filibuster...)

The whole system was setup by rich people trying to get rid of a king above then, but trying to keep the system that suited them as stable and unchanging as possible by making the system extremely vulnerable to gridlocks.

[PainRack]

Wait.


Why the fuck is Covid relief plan now a healthcare plan?

A minimum wage increase isn't enough, a relief plan that being targeted to squeeze through reconcilation and thus may lose min wage needs to also be Medicaid and Medicare expansion?


Meanwhile. Biden still promised to expand Medicaid and allow opt in to Medicare, aka, public option.

Why don't we wait a while? Even the ACA waited until the Detroit automobile crisis was over before being unveiled in Congress.

[Khaat]

Time isn't going to change anyone's position, and the GOP won't give a shit about little people any more in six weeks than they do today. A flurry of help-the-little-guy activity being stonewalled by the GOP, though? Extra visible right now. Most people in the US are paying attention to business getting done, after four years of none. The GOP can only crow "we gave your fat-cat bosses a tax break! (Don't pay attention to your taxes going up every other year in exchange!)" for so long.

Besides, Q has to have something to decode to sell the Face/Off Biden-is-secretly-face-swapped-Trump delusion.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It makes it harder for people to blame the Democrats for stuff not getting done when everyone gets to see Republicans blocking it by reading the phonebook for hours at a time instead of doing something that looks productive.

That might not be enough to cause any meaningful change, but I can't see how forcing the Republicans to do their obstruction in public will hurt.

Um, because this already happened? We had 8 years of Republicans doing their obstruction in public during the Obama presidency. What makes this time any different?

[Ralin]

Um, because this already happened? We had 8 years of Republicans doing their obstruction in public during the Obama presidency. What makes this time any different?

Noticeably more seething rage among the general public.

[Ace Pace]

Um, because this already happened? We had 8 years of Republicans doing their obstruction in public during the Obama presidency. What makes this time any different?

Noticeably more seething rage among the general public.

Doesn't bother them.

[Ralin]

Doesn't bother them.

Yet.

[bilateralrope]

It makes it harder for people to blame the Democrats for stuff not getting done when everyone gets to see Republicans blocking it by reading the phonebook for hours at a time instead of doing something that looks productive.

That might not be enough to cause any meaningful change, but I can't see how forcing the Republicans to do their obstruction in public will hurt.

Um, because this already happened? We had 8 years of Republicans doing their obstruction in public during the Obama presidency. What makes this time any different?

Consider the options here:
- Democrats try something. Republicans threaten filibuster. Democrats cave.
- Democrats try something. Republicans threaten filibuster. Democrats hold firm. Republicans have to filibuster.

Which looks better for the democrats ?

Oh and that's assuming that there is a Republican who has the willpower to stand up and filibuster every single time. If there are any times when the Republicans lack that will, then option 2 gets stuff done that would have failed under option 1.

[Jub]

It basically boils down to people wanting the Democrats to try and fail rather than not trying because of presumed failure.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Noticeably more seething rage among the general public.

Okay, cool, so the Democrats will be even more angry at the Republicans, and the Republicans will be even more angry at the Democrats.

The problem is this rage is a symptom of hyper-polarization, not some sign that people are coming to their sense and seeing through Republican chicanery. At the moment there is precisely 0 evidence that something like a filibuster would change the minds of Republican voters, because something like a filibuster pales in magnitude in comparison to all of the other stuff that the Republicans have done lately without it budging opinion numbers one bit.

Consider the options here:
- Democrats try something. Republicans threaten filibuster. Democrats cave.
- Democrats try something. Republicans threaten filibuster. Democrats hold firm. Republicans have to filibuster.

Which looks better for the democrats ?

Oh and that's assuming that there is a Republican who has the willpower to stand up and filibuster every single time. If there are any times when the Republicans lack that will, then option 2 gets stuff done that would have failed under option 1.

What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I say anything about wanting the Democrats to cave? I feel like my posts here have been pretty clear about what my point is. I was arguing against the notion that choosing to filibuster would somehow damage the Republican party's reputation in the eyes of their voters, a notion for which there is precisely 0 evidence and flies in the face of everything we have learned in the past 4 years about the current state of American politics. How many times do we have to see harsh reality shatter the wishful thoughts of liberals regarding the secret good nature of the Republican party that surely has to still be there somewhere?

Of course the Democrats shouldn't cave. I mean, they probably will, because they are spineless toads, but they absolutely shouldn't. They should use every ounce of power available to them to get stuff done in the face of Republican obstructionism. But none of this will have any effect on the hyper-polarization of American politics, that requires a much broader and concerted long-term effort.

[Ralin]

I feel like my posts here have been pretty clear about what my point is. I was arguing against the notion that choosing to filibuster would somehow damage the Republican party's reputation in the eyes of their voters, a notion for which there is precisely 0 evidence and flies in the face of everything we have learned in the past 4 years about the current state of American politics. How many times do we have to see harsh reality shatter the wishful thoughts of liberals regarding the secret good nature of the Republican party that surely has to still be there somewhere?

I think you're missing the point. The idea is that it'll 1) encourage the Democrats' base to vote more and for more aggressively left-wing/anti-Republican candidates and 2) maybe peel off some of the voters who could go either way. Maybe. They apparently exist. Weirdly enough.

The problem is this rage is a symptom of hyper-polarization, not some sign that people are coming to their sense and seeing through Republican chicanery. At the moment there is precisely 0 evidence that something like a filibuster would change the minds of Republican voters, because something like a filibuster pales in magnitude in comparison to all of the other stuff that the Republicans have done lately without it budging opinion numbers one bit.

Yeah well I don't have an answer to the hyper-polarization issue short of just straight up having Harris or Biden suspend elections or disenfranchise Republican voters en masse, but aggressively trying to push through good legislation and making the Republicans who oppose it look as bad as possible in the process are pretty basic tactics here. Whether it's effective or not I'm not seeing any better place to start.

[bilateralrope]

What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I say anything about wanting the Democrats to cave? I feel like my posts here have been pretty clear about what my point is. I was arguing against the notion that choosing to filibuster would somehow damage the Republican party's reputation in the eyes of their voters, a notion for which there is precisely 0 evidence and flies in the face of everything we have learned in the past 4 years about the current state of American politics. How many times do we have to see harsh reality shatter the wishful thoughts of liberals regarding the secret good nature of the Republican party that surely has to still be there somewhere?

Of course the Democrats shouldn't cave. I mean, they probably will, because they are spineless toads, but they absolutely shouldn't. They should use every ounce of power available to them to get stuff done in the face of Republican obstructionism. But none of this will have any effect on the hyper-polarization of American politics, that requires a much broader and concerted long-term effort.

A while ago, I saw some article about how US election campaigns aren't about getting people to switch sides. They aren't about getting some swing voters to pick your side. They are about getting your base to care enough to vote and/or convincing your opponents base to stay home.

The perception that Democrats are spineless toads who keep caving is one that discourages Democrat voters. The perception that they are doing all they can, but are being blocked by some Republican with a filibuster, is a bit better. To shift that perception, we need Republicans being seen filibustering. We need them to be seen going blocking votes by talking about talking for hours, preferably about something other than the vote in question.

As for the hyper-polarization for US politics, I don't see that going away as long as the US sticks to district-based elections where you have, at best, a choice between the two people that have a chance of winning and a bunch of others who can't do anything beyond splitting the vote.

[PainRack]

Time isn't going to change anyone's position, and the GOP won't give a shit about little people any more in six weeks than they do today. A flurry of help-the-little-guy activity being stonewalled by the GOP, though? Extra visible right now. Most people in the US are paying attention to business getting done, after four years of none. The GOP can only crow "we gave your fat-cat bosses a tax break! (Don't pay attention to your taxes going up every other year in exchange!)" for so long.

Besides, Q has to have something to decode to sell the Face/Off Biden-is-secretly-face-swapped-Trump delusion.

Yes.... But Biden structured Covid relief so it can pass with reconcilation if needed.

A healthcare plan won't. At NO point has Biden said he wouldn't do public option and etc, all the froth so far in this thread is worth absolutely nothing.

[Jub]

I'm curious and will probably look it up myself but does anybody know how many changes Trump had pushed through by the end of his first 30 days in office? It will be interesting to compare the two (and Obama) and see if Biden is actually dragging his feet or if Trump just came in and got (terrible) things done.