“But from a tactical standpoint, I have no idea why the opt out was introduced.” maybe to get Baucus to co-sponsor Wyden’s amendment?

An excellent question! I’ve been wondering the same thing.

Perhaps it is for Conservative Democrats?

Regardless, I am strongly opposed to Opt Out. If you opt out of the public option for healthcare, then you should also opt out of socialized freeways and the United States Postal Service.

The Poor Man’s Lobbyist
http://www.poormanslobbyist.org
http://blog.poormanslobbyist.org

Welcome to Firedoglake!
Standard-issue disclaimer: Please limit links to your own site to just once daily. Thanks.

Maybe it wasn’t a tactical move, rather a way to let all the people who like to vote against their own interests (lower & middle class republicans, also republican women, i’m a lookin’ at you) feel they are represented in the current government, even though they didn’t vote for Democrats.

It’s a shame they’ll probably cut off their own nose again, but the history of social security and medicare indicate they’ll come along eventually. In the mean time they can excuse themselves from the early days of these changes. I’m sorry for the people who really need health care in the states that opt-out and suggest they invest in some luggage and move. Why live with fools?

Tactics? Senate Democratic leadership?

Surely you jest.

this isn’t so much a persistant problem with “democrats” we can put this squarely on the shoulders of this president, he had been taught time and time again, deal as he may the republicans will not go along

and then by dealing he sets a new lower bar to which they will deal again

this president learns NOTHING in his failure, absolutely nothing

I actually think it was a tactic. A tactic to attack the validity of the PO itself.

We know the White House doesn’t want the PO, so Rahm encouraged ways to make it seem small d democratic, and chisel away at it. Voila, opt-out was born.

I sure wouldn’t let ‘em plan an ambush.

here’s one thing about the “opt out”

one thing republicans don’t do is turn back largess, for instance, those that were previously red states have in general recieved more back from the fed then they gave, the blue states have revieved on the whole less

they claim they don’t want social programs but they take advantage whenever they can

I am not so certain we should be fighting that hard against a public option, I really don’t think they will hold it back once the other states are climbing on board

I am off to bed, g’night all

congratulations on a round well fought, a public policy is beaten up and worn for the next few rounds, what is going to be left standing remains for us to see

it’s sleep;30 for me

Don’t get too smug about “lower & middle class republicans, also republican women” voting against their own interests.

Goldman Sachs and the rest of Fraud Street have more influence in DC under Democratic Administrations that under (R)’s, according to Matt Taibbi, who has legions of fact-checkers vetting his work at Rolling Stone. As he said here at FDL one day:

Yes, there is a difference. Wall Street has MORE influence under Democratic administrations.
GS (Goldman Sachs) was Obama’s #1 private contributor. It gave 4 dollars to Democratic congressional candidates for every 1 to Republicans last year. This has been their history long-term. The Democrats very clearly bank their financial strategy on raising money from the financial services industry, and it’s been that way going back to at least 96, with the Rubin era

so it would seem most (D) voters who are getting zilch, or worse from the new Administration were also ‘voting against their interests’ while the most arrogant, smug, entitled, corrupt and amoral banksters who got rich hollowing out the American economy get to soak up trillions in government bailout money, and unload their toxic assets onto the taxpayer!

I think the opt reveals how desperately Obama and the Democrats need to pass SOMETHING that resembles healthcare reform. They are dead in 2010 and 2012 if they can’t produce a healthcare bill. This puts them (us) at a tactical disadvantage, because the other side doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anything.

Mary Landrieu, the same.

I still say that Mary is quite blatantly for sale – the price tag being precisely $200M.

She gets that, she’ll vote for anything.

I’m willing to bet jane gets invited to the whitehouse for a pow wow

I am thinking maybe we can get a little jane for joe’s seat

Was anybody here and I mean, anybody, the fly on the wall? This may shake out in ways you don’t know yet.

The whole point is you don’t and actually can’t vote for your interests. You vote for a representative in our system.

I think we’re way past that sort of paternal thinking. Talks of 3rd parties and what not miss the point.

If it was a real democracy here rather than a representative democracy, we would be de-funding the war and funding healthcare. (Most people really do have their priorities straight once you take out fearmongering.)

So, isn’t it interesting that the Reps, including the Executive, aren’t doing what actual people want? This whole “daddy knows best” business is outmoded and more and more unhelpful to real people’s lives.

Rhetorical Q?

Old news. What’s your point? Anything constructive?

Surely you jest.

Maybe Conservadems wouldn’t have agreed to begin debate without the opt out. Beginning debate is huge because 98% of bills that got to this point have passed.

Something the fly on the would know.

Nice to have an optimist in the house. Of the 98% of the bills that have passed at this point in the debate, how many results have been worth anything?

Why didn’t Voinovich vote?

TPM says Voinovich was celebrating his 30 years in politics with his original crew. Told leadership he wouldn’t be in town to vote.

Thanks. How quaint.

I used to bang my head against a brick wall.
So I went to the doctor and you know what he told me?
Stop banging your head against a brick wall.

I know. I couldn’t resist. There are some I just have to take a shot at. *g*

Harry, give them an inch and they’ll take your nards.

I see your point, and didn’t mean to be smug. But leaving the financial sector aside for a moment, in terms of social policy it’s hard for me to understand women republicans, black or hispanic republicans, poor republicans.

They just don’t think before they vote. Actually you can add truly religious voters that back venal, war mongering republicans.

didn’t really matter – either the D’s got the 60, or they didn’t.

Whether Voinovich was there or not really made no difference.

R’s don’t break ranks – ever. the thing about tonight was that the D’s, for the first time in *my* memory, didn’t break ranks either.

‘Course, we still don’t know what the cashier’s bill for those last 4 D votes might be.

I’m glad you agree that it is nigh impossible for anyone to really vote for their own interests the way the system is now.

I was just responding that one shouldn’t feel smug about low information (R) types voting against their interests.

and of course you vote for representatives, who then go to Washington and ostensibly try to represent their constituents.

direct democracy has its own pitfalls – look what California voters have done to Sacramento with their various ballot initiatives.

The interesting part is going to be the amendment sessions and the final bill debate. We should get an idea of where it’s going then. It’ll be name taking time. The ass kickin’ comes later.

CAs problems, as I understand them, stem more from the rule of the miniority (2/3 req. to raise taxes) than anything else, certainly not direct democracy. IANAC, so feel free to correct my errors.

Medicaid has had an opt-out for states since its inception, likely to get the votes of Senators from states presumed at the time of passage to want to opt out.

No state ever has.

Without nards, NOW what the phook do we do?

Is there really any question about where it’s going? It will be as weak as possible and still allow Dems to pretend they accomplished something for the common good.

I’m excited about Wyden’s amendment. That would add a whole lot of healthy people to the public option pool and get it off to a faster start.

In Harry’s case I’m certain the point has long been moot. They should change his title to Soprano Majority Leader.

I gotta get off this thing. It’s warping my brain. Actually my eyes hurt.

Namaste

What you present decries both our political system and our people. I decry our political system.

Your worldview has no chance of being anything but dismal.

While my worldview has frustrations, it certainly has a chance at evolving.

I was just curious.

Namaste SD.

That’s exactly right, and it’s the reason that it’s Schumer, darling of the finance world, who is working with the Triggernomics Dems.

It’s all about money.

I prefer “weltanschauung” ’cause it sounds slightly dirty.

Heh. It does, doesn’t it?

you’re right on that, there are some political combinations that are so internally contradictory, they just don’t make any sense.

But much of politics is simply tribal, or cultural preference, kind of like people’s favorite sports team. So in that sense, anyone can root for their team to win, and feel genuine exhilaration at their victories and wallow in communal disgruntlement at their defeats.

this of course applies equally to (D) and (R) supporters.

Not as much as defenestration and matriculation.

Big fan of defenestration; out the window with them!

Yep, the only way legislators will work for poor folks is if they pay higher bribes than the corporate overlords.

Talk about setting the bar out of reach.

true that the 2/3rds business doen’t help, but the ballot initiatives tie them down, too.

see occasional commenter here Ian Welsh’s post on this:

the solution to California’s budget woes is to raise taxes, primarily on the rich, and to allow municipalities to raise property taxes. The solution is dead simple.

However, in a more real sense, there is no solution. Because California’s constitution allows a minority rump of Republicans to veto the majority, no such tax rises can pass. And since California’s proposition system is what made property tax rises impossible, and since a proposition to remove the limits is unlikely to pass, there is no solution.

Forgive my ignorance but I have conflicting messages… just a working stiff here.

The vote for “cloture” to permit Senate debate, the introduction of amendments, etc required 60 votes, and we got them.

How much of the remaining process is still being held hostage to the 60 vote super majority stipulation, that was created by the “threat to filibuster is the same as an actual filibuster,” nonsense?

I’m asking an academic question. Amendments require 60? Will it need another 60 before the Senate Committee sits down with the House Committee? Will the House have to vote again after the Bills are combined? Will the Senate have to vote again on the combined bill, and will 60 be required for that?

Oh, edited to add: If you can give me an online source for your answer, so I can have a legal reference, so I can accurately inform others… that would be spiffy. Thanks again FDL you totally rock. Tell me what to do and I’ll do it.

Thanks

Wow, I didn’t have you pegged as a heavy metal fan. “g”

As long as they take a sanitary napkin along.

Was completely unaware, I pologize.

Me too until I looked up “defenestration.” Great word.

Kill the Bill.
Begin again….with Single Payer. We know who the obstructionist players are. Let’s give them some rope.

…the only way legislators will work for poor folks is if they pay higher bribes than the corporate overlords.

well, *I’ve* got $5.37 just burning a hole in my pocket…

on edit: $5.36.

One of those was a Canadian penny. *g*

Here’s a starting link at Open Congress. They’re excellent on procedure. (So is David Waldman at Congress Matters.) Follow the links in that post and you’ll get a good view on how this will all play out procedurally.

My HS classmates (dorks to be sure) asked multiple pubescent girls whether they had started defenestrating yet.

I can match that.

In a perfect world the questioners would have subsequently been thrown out the window.

Hey, new post upstairs — now with video of Jane Hamsher on NBC Nightly News.

What she said.

Defenestration? Reminds me of that awful scene in Mrs. Dalloway… kind of appropriate, under current circumstances.

As for Reid, he’s always so ready to fold, and almost never willing enough to hold ‘em.

We need a better poker player as majority leader in the senate.

Apparently, even the big brokerage houses are recruiting poker players these days. Figures!

Can’t find original link, but this one makes the case.

Defenestrate is rooted in de – out, fenestra – window in Latin, like in the Defenestration of Prague.

there’s another meaning?

I think they were amused by it’s vague resemblance to a more cyclical term.

I found it, but thank you for responding.

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/steps_to_win/

The merged Senate bill will move to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Debate in the Senate is more free-flowing than the House, and may be extended over two or more weeks. Although amendments need a simple majority (50 votes) to be accepted in the Senate, we expect that for most amendments, procedural hurdles will be raised that require 60 votes to bypass.

After all amendments have been considered, the final bill will be put to a vote. The Senate bill will face a cloture motion requiring 60 Senators to pass. That motion is procedural and Senators will be under pressure to proceed along party lines. After cloture, the Senate can pass a bill with a simple, fair majority of 50 votes.

After the Senate passes their bill, the Senate bill will join the House bill and leaders from each house of Congress will head into “conference” to hash out the differences between their bills. The agreed upon bill (“conference report”) will then be brought to each chamber for a vote which could again be blocked in the Senate by a procedural motion that needs 60 votes to clear.

The bill has of course been compromised eight ways to Sunday already, of course, and yet the axis of Nelson and Lieberman and Lincoln and Landrieu aren’t satisfied.

It appears that Democrats haven’t watched ANY of the many Law and Order or CSI franchise member shows. When you pay kidnappers, or blackmailers, it doesn’t make them go away, it just encourages them to ask for more — since they know you’re weak and will pay up.

Expect more of this crap from ConservaDems.

I have a technical question as well. Is the requirement for cloture 60 votes or 60%? If the latter then Voinovich’s absence could have made a difference.

60/99 = 60.6%
But let’s say that Lieberman abstained. Then it would have been 59…which wouldn’t have reached the 60 vote threshold. But 59/98 = 60.2%. Only if Lieberman had voted with the Republicans would it have posed a problem 59/99 = 59.5%.

Also I think that the opt out might be very problematical for the Republican politicians in the Red States. The opt-out is not, as I understand it, for anything but public option component in their state. Everything else, including mandatory insurance and fines would still be applied. Their Congressmen and Senators have screamed about the evils of the “public option” as socialism, so how can they honestly vote for it in their State? They’d appear hypocrites and make them subject to challenge from the tea-party extremists.

Yet if they don’t large numbers of their citizens will compelled to purchase insurance or face fines. Lots of these would likely be Young Republican men and sundry libertarian types. They’d be fined if they resist, but they’d be livid if their legislators voted against the public option..thus denying them a cheaper opportunity to private health insurance. It’s ideology vs. their pocketbooks.

Very few Republicans and Tea-Partiers actually turn down their “socialist” benefits…and often squeal loudly if they are pared back. But if it were their own Republican legislatures or Governor that did denied them an option available to people in other states they’d be very upset.

So the Republicans in these states are going to be trapped in a pincer. Well-to-do right wingers might mount “tea party” campaigns if they vote against an opt out…but the not so well off types might vote against them if the don’t.

See this post

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/11/21/i-sent-the-following-fax-to-senator-lincoln/

The second cloture vote is one to cut-off debate, isn’t it? Then there is the final vote. Can the Senate adjourn without voting on the Bill?

didn’t arizona opt out of medicaid until something like 1982?

Sorry if I’m repeating what others might have said above. Late out here on the West Coast and need to hit the sack ASAP. Anyway…

The point of the Opt-Out was to set a lower bar to negotiate *down* from.

Fall Back Positions:

1. Medicare + 5% –> “Negotiated”
2. “Negotiated” –> Opt-Out
3. Opt-Out –> Opt-In
4. Opt-Out –> Trigger
5. Trigger –> None

Whatever we think of the White House (i.e. Rahm) and all but the most extreme of the ConservaDems, they’d really like a Trigger because they think it gives them their Cake and Let’s them Eat It Too:

Cake: Populist position of being for a “Public Option” in some form

Eat: The PO will never happen, so Big Health will be happy and keep money flowing to the Dems

So that’s where the WH and true “moderate” Corporate Dems like Baucus and Conrad and Reid have wanted the thing to go. Conrad of course wants his bullshit Co-Opts because he’s delusional in thinking that’s populist while properly seeing out healthcare reform to their corporate masters.

The problem has been that a starting point of 1 or 2 would have made it extremely difficult to negotiate down to a Trigger.

Out-Out is more problematic because there’s the pass through of Opt-In, but Reid played the game that it would make *him* look better by pushing for something that was to the left of the WH while feeling comfortable that the ConservaDems would at some point step into the breach and save the Trigger.

I don’t think Reid still grasp that it’s going to make him look Bad when they fall all the way back to the Trigger. He’ll have a Progressive target on his chest, and the primary is coming. I like Jane’s comments in the past that his son also will be targetted, though I think resources probably should be forcused on making sure Harry takes it in the shorts.

Anyway, DDay’s original post is 100% *if* that’s what Leadership and the WH wanted: the strongest position to fall back from once that ConservaDems started making noise.

But we know that *nothing* in this process has been about taking strong positions. The WH and Leadership don’t want it. They want a “win” not just in any form, but in the weakest one they can get yet still claim it’s a win. They think this is good politics as it will keep Big Health on the Dems side.

We all know this is also mistaken:

* Good Policy on this bill would have been the Best Politics

* Big Health will run to the GOP the first chance they get

* the Dems will get blamed for all the Bad Policy

It’s sad to think of those crazy fucks being back in power in 2012 with none of the problems facing the country solved, and some of them made worse. But if back in November 2008 you wanted to draw up Democratic activity to best set up a GOP revival, you couldn’t have drawn it up better. The GOP keeps getting more insane… and our party keeps getting dumber, while Rome Burns.

John

I will repeat something I have said before. The conservative corporate congressional establishment appears weak and vulnerable at the cash registers of those companies that give them money.

http://tr.im/public_option

For example, Arkansas company Tyson Foods gave money to Conservative Democrat Mike Ross of Arkansas who leads the conservative House Democrats on health care.

Blanche Lincoln Of Arkansas, a conservative Democrat opposes any public option.

Doesn’t it make sense for thousands of progressives to threaten a consumer boycott against Tyson foods, the maker of Tyson Chicken and make demands of Ross and Lincoln for a public option that really appears strong such as a single payer public option that does not ban private plans but will eliminate private plans because they cannot compete with government subsidized health care.

Ross and Lincoln don’t give a damn about people like you and I BUT Lincoln and Ross will have to give a damn when thousands of us tell her and Mike Ross, that you can forget us ever buying Tyson chicken from their friends ever again until we get what we want. You have the power of withholding your purchases. You don’t consider yourself impotent anymore and show that impotence in these forums, and instead you say we’re going to upset Ross’ and Lincoln’s apple cart because we’re going after a company right in their back yard and we’re going to get people around the entire country to stop buying their products.

Otherwise if you don’t do this, you have very little power and you look like an impotent complainer. Don’t complain, don’t explain, make them complain!!! Boycott their friends in Arkansas.

Well said, sporkovat. I remember when the DNC and the networks colluded to exclude Kucinich from the debates in NH and Iowa. We were given the freedom to choose between Establishment Candidate A, or B. The only difference being: how exactly will we be sold down the river for obscene profits?

But the advent of the blogoshpere, the ability FDL and others have demonstrated: to bust the electorate-jacking myths of the kleptocrats even as they deploy them; has been a game-changer. Their old bag of tricks just don’t work like it used to. And the blogosphere’s inexorable maturation gives me great hope.

I bow in the virtual direction of all y’all.