Healthcare Options For Democrats

[Tars]

This NY Times Editorial provides an overview of the procedural options open to Democrats, to get healthcare reform enacted, despite the total obstuctionist non-cooperation of the GOP:

Majority Rule on Health Care Reform

Excerpt:

"The talk in Washington is that Senate Democrats are preparing to push through health care reforms using parliamentary procedures that will allow a simple majority to prevail in their chamber, as it does in the House, instead of the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster that Senate Republicans are sure to mount.

With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, the Democrats do not have the votes just among their 57 members (and the two independents) to break a filibuster, and not all of these can be counted on to vote in lock step. If the Democrats want to enact health care reform this year, they appear to have little choice but to adopt a high-risk, go-it-alone, majority-rules strategy.

We say this with considerable regret because a bipartisan compromise would be the surest way to achieve comprehensive reforms with broad public support. But the ideological split between the parties is too wide — and the animosities too deep — for that to be possible."

[Hotspring 44]

If they do that they should then open the discussion to single-payer! Otherwise it's just another scam as far as I'm concerned.

Hotspring 44.

This NY Times Editorial provides an overview of the procedural options open to Democrats, to get healthcare reform enacted, despite the total obstuctionist non-cooperation of the GOP:

Majority Rule on Health Care Reform

Excerpt:

"The talk in Washington is that Senate Democrats are preparing to push through health care reforms using parliamentary procedures that will allow a simple majority to prevail in their chamber, as it does in the House, instead of the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster that Senate Republicans are sure to mount.

With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, the Democrats do not have the votes just among their 57 members (and the two independents) to break a filibuster, and not all of these can be counted on to vote in lock step. If the Democrats want to enact health care reform this year, they appear to have little choice but to adopt a high-risk, go-it-alone, majority-rules strategy.

We say this with considerable regret because a bipartisan compromise would be the surest way to achieve comprehensive reforms with broad public support. But the ideological split between the parties is too wide — and the animosities too deep — for that to be possible."

[Braggi]

If they do that they should then open the discussion to single-payer! Otherwise it's just another scam as far as I'm concerned

Agreed. I detest the way "the media" in the US is reporting that Obama is losing support because the voters feel he's "in over his head" (a phrase I've heard dozens of times on the radio) on healthcare reform. Gads! The reason we're upset is because so many are trying to dump the "public option" and Obama's not speaking forcefully enough on the issue. It's not that he's in over his head, it's that he's not in far enough!

Once again, the minority is driving the ship of state into the rocks. It's what they love. It's all about trillions for the wealthy right now and let the grandkids pay for it. It certainly isn't about what's good for the country and good for the children. Please don't ask me to connect all these rambling phrases with some kind of logic. Thanks.

-Jeff