Harry Reid: "He double-crossed me. ... Let’s not do what he wants. Let the bill just go down,"

This was merely Reid's first-blush reaction to the Lieberman betrayal. Then we had the "WH tells Reid to give Lieberman whatever he wants" story a day or two later, so there's probably a good story there.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, reading this as a recent comment. Just recently reported. Obviously Reid changed his mind and this has nothing to do will the bill going forward.




From DUer kpete's more comprehensive post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7457287&mesg_id=7457287

And start over with single payer or at least an iron clad public option.

...the votes are not there.

If Feingold had signalled that he would not vote for the Senate bill, you know that Reid and the White House would be negotiating with him to make the bill more liberal so that he'd support it.

Like that was ever going to happen.

Lieberman is the main problem. He fucking ran against us in the last election. He stood there and nodded his head while Sarah Palin was foaming at the mouth, stirring up the hate crowds at Candidate Obama. Geez, consider some perspective here.

Lieberman took the stage with Palin and agreed with her as the crowds were screaming for Obama's blood.

I can't believe the amount of crap they take from Lieberman. Joe will probably campaign for Reid's rival in Nevada so that Joe can become leader and the stupid White House make some calls and tell the senators to give Lieberman what he wants.

I'm having a hard time calling myself a democrat these days.

...starting with the votes of ignorant and apathetic citizens that installed such a corrupt bunch of "representatives" in Congress.

That the votes aren't there is a fact.

Helloooo.... Reality is calling.

and I don't for one minute believe that it was ever seriously pursued by anyone, the reality is that we will not have any kind of real opportunity to pass any decent kind of HCR after November and it is really sad how the opportunity this Admin and Congress had was allowed to be squandered. And that is Reality.

Thats not the least bit logical. A squandered opportunity is that which results is nothing.

If this bill still ends up with doing away with the anti-trust exemptions and making all health insurance a product available on the national level, along with the other good regulations, then this thing won't be half bad.

history we are mandating that citizens purchase a product from a private company under penalty of law. Then the Bill is so ineptly crafted as to not guarantee the purchasers of that product any real benefit.Businesses will not be encouraged to provide insurance because it is cheaper for them to pay the fine.Likewise private individual purchasers who do not consider themselves at risk or unable to afford what the government deems "affordable"(and it isn't) will also choose to pay the penalty.This will result in fewer insured as opposed to more and the so called benefits for the citizen insured will not exist. In addition to which the deal struck with Big Pharma continues to make it impossible for anyone to afford the medications prescribed for their conditions. We are seeing the ramifications of this currently with our seniors.What good does it do to see a doctor if you can't afford the treatment? And BTW, this also taxes the benefits that union workers have fought and died for, putting them in the same category as bonuses, actually taxed higher than bonuses.How can a HCR be considered HCR when it attacks the existence of health care benefits of union members?

Phleshdef, are possible anti=trust inclusion and having health insurance "available on the national level" worth this nation's embrace of involuntary servitude? Because that's what the mandate is.

Read here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-healthy-americans-act_b_301962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-wyden---bennett-healt_b_293117.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/a-plan-for-universal-cove_b_309513.html

That's bullshit and it's not in the Constitution. The Repuke pieces of shit want to fillibuster? Let them fucking fillibuster until they fall over dead and shit their diapers, the fucking cowards.

Which the denialist- let's pass FAIL crowd continues to dishonestly ignore.

it doesn't have to be 60 - and if they still want to fillibuster, go back to making whoever is doing it talk nonstop.

Nuclear option will do it with 51, though I'm sure there aren't that many votes for single payer. But at least we'd get a half-decent public option that way.

The status quo is better than nothing more than mandates to bloated insurance companies.

that you don't understand? It's not a few votes shy, it's not even close.

Single payer is dead. RIP.

it doesn't have the votes? No one has ever tried to pass it or discuss it other than in passing. Have you spoken to each and every member of Congress personally, or the insurance lobby who pays off the more helpful members? Who whispered this information in your shell like ears? Or are you just surmising?

Also what is it you don't understand about using tact and being polite when posting with OP in a thread? Do you think that being rude is the way to happy agreement or is it just something you like doing for its own sake? Nothing cuts off discussion faster than hostility. Or maybe that is what you want?

One who said so on tape is John Kerry, who is FOR single payer if it could be done. He brought it up in the Finance committee, where it had no other support. Kerry's answer was that there are many how are ideologically against it.

on tape. Senators whom you deem credible giving their opinions. That is fine for what it is worth, but it is not the same thing as putting something to a vote to see how much support there actually is or is not.

You can't run the world based on people's opinions and you can't accept them as the gold standard either. There has been so much waffling back and forth on this issue that opinions are changing all the time. Kerry says "many" are ideologically against it? How many? When did they say so? Has anyone else heard it? You haven't named anyone but Kerry as your source. One Senator does not make a consensus. So we are back to is it true because you think it is, or has someone actually polled the members of both the Senate and the House and gotten straight numbers. If so, can you link to them?

I trust Kerry and he was speaking to the other Senators - and in more detail than polling them. IMO He is in a far better position to know what his peers will and won't agree to - that's his job.

The fact that there were not 60 for a public option proves it. Lieberman would not even approve Medicare buy in for those 55 - 65. Count him as one. On the Finance committee, three increasiningly weaker public options were voted down. The first which had Medicare rates to start with (Rockefeller's) was voted against by all the Republicans and Baucus, Conrad, Bill Nelson, Lincoln, and Carper. I listened to their reasons - they were all such that it was obvious that single payer was not So, I have given you 6 Democrats with specific information that you could check - a public option needs 60 - without effort - this means that they are at least 6 short. Note that this doesn't include Landrieau, Pryor, Tester, Webb, and several other more conservative Democrats.

I'm sorry if that is the case, but let us try one more time. Opinions are subjective. Even if they are stated by good and trustworthy people they are colored by that persons emotions, ideas and attempts to make the best of a situation they may or may not like. It may or may not be a factual from that person. It depends on if they are stating the opinion as a semantic measure to persuade others that what they say is the case when it is not the case, or if they are stating the opinion based on what they want to happen or think will happen. All of this is subjective not empiric or attributable to direct proof like the words out of 60 or more mouths duly recorded on video or paper in public that they will not vote for a single payer option. If you hide behind opinions instead of going on the record and telling people, "No, I am not going to give you what you want." Your job is safer than if you do this in the present climate of hostility and outrage toward government.

I can count to sixty, and I don't even have to use my toes. It is a basic skill I learned when they still educated us in school. I just have not seen a count on this particular issue. It was never included in legislation that was actually voted on and if we go on accepting opinions as facts it never will be. I want the "conservative" Democrats to stand up and be counted. That way they can account to the voters in the Democratic primaries and maybe be replaced by less conservative Democrats. It is called giving voters the knowledge they need to make an informed choice instead of a tissue of lies, innuendo and manipulation which we were handed along with a bunch of rosy promises in the last presidential election. Promises, by the way which were never meant to be kept. They were stated to get voters to form a favorable opinion of the candidate so that they would vote for him. I, among many others bought it. Even considering that McCain was the other candidate and I would have voted against him anyhow it was still a pretty good snow job.

Now I want facts. I want to see who is responsible for what. I want to see polls, surveys, roll call votes; the whole thing. Opinions aren't worth very much if you need medical help and have no way to get it which is the only position Obama seems to embrace. That is my opinion based on his actions to date, but if you do even a cursory search you will find polls that show that it is not only my opinion, it is a mind set shared by many.

Also, where is the House in your calculations? You keep mentioning the Senate? There are two houses which comprise congress but you only quote Senate opinions. Is that because they are so pivotal in your mind that we don't need the house or is that because they support a point that you want to make very much. If this is a point you want to make very much for yourself, what do you have against single payer. That it might work? That it would have been so very easy and doable? What? It would help more people who need it than anything they are tossing back and forth now. Or do you even have an explanation? Maybe you are just echoing an opinion you heard and don't have any explanation at all. By the way comparing what they are call "public option" to single payer is like comparing apples and oranges. They are completely different. The so called "Public Option," really doesn't benefit anyone but the health insurance companies and their dependents in Congress and other places in government.

I still have the same response. The reason I spoke of just the Senate is that a bill must pass BOTH houses, so it suffices to prove that it could not pass one of them. (This does not mean I think it could pass the House.) The reason I spoke of the Senate was that they need 60, not 50%. That is the harder test to pass. The other reason was that it was simple to show that they do not have the votes.

You are right that there is no vote that has been taken in the Senate on single payer. Bernie Sanders has a bill, which no one co-sponsored, that has never been brought to a vote. Sanders spoke of bringing it to a vote as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the Health Care bill but withdrew it before it was voted on because he didn't want to be obstructing the progress of the bill for something that wouldn't pass.

As to an effort to get the position of every Senator and House member, YOU can take on the task of doing so. Remember that even someone as high profile and with the connections he had as Howard Dean did not have full information of Congress people's postion on the public option even after months of trying. It is also not necessary. To prove that there are not sufficient votes, all I have to do is find ONE comment that is a definite "no" from someone in the Democratic caucus.

Here it is - go to about 1 minute 20 seconds in on this Lieberman comment where he explains that the reason he is stopping the PO is that it could lead to single payer - he then speaks VERY NEGATIVELY about single payer - http://www.verumserum.com/?p=10200 Now, I could google "single payer" and various Senators' names and maybe find more either for it or against it. But, just as there are different methods to prove a theorem, here the easiest way to prove that it could not now pass, is to simply show that it loses even one in our caucus - which I just did.

You mention that I used being against the public option as a proxy for single payer, I actually didn't - I spoke of listening to the Finance Committee hearing and because of that arguing that the reasons used in their comments led me to see that list of Democrats as very very likely "nos" on single payer. I also spoke of John Kerry's comments. He did bring single payer up in earlier Senate Finance Committee meetings and he part of the Senate. I quoted him because he is an insider here and he has spoken to his peers. Here is the link to Kerry's comments when he was ambushed before giving a climate change speech. http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1281

You somehow jump to the conclusion that I am against single payer, which I am not. If what I had seen watching hearings or floor speeches gave me reason to question Kerry's perception, I would have. But, even given just the Lieberman quote, tell me how you are going to get 60 votes.

answer. I think I am understanding more clearly what you intend. I do know what you are saying, and I think you know what I am trying to say. This is good for both of us. We have communicated.

Just a couple of points I need to clarify. I asked if you were supporting a single payer. I didn't conclude that you were against it. Often during discussions like this I have had people tell me what I felt and thought when they didn't know and didn't ask, so I asked. You don't have to answer. That is your privilege. But if you had wanted to you could have made your own answer instead of having it made for you.

I know about the senate rules. I thought they sucked when Bush's Senate put them into place, and I think they should be revamped now. I'm surprised that the Democrats have not done so. They have the committees and it is in their power.

I think, though that you have the impression that I believe a single payer bill would go slamming through. I don't. I would like to see who opposes it on a vote and then I would have a better idea who to target efforts of opposition against in the primaries. The bill they are running now is not acceptable to me and I think it will do more harm than good. I would like to see it dumped and then have the Democrats start all over again without Republican input. That probably wouldn't have an easy time passing either, but at least it would get some better ideas out in the open than this version has.

I don't believe that Joe Lieberman has anyone's ear. He changed parties and people have difficulty trusting a turncoat with such an obvious agenda to obstruct. I was listening to a news commentator who basically said that Lieberman has shot his wad and lost whatever tenuous influence he had. I'm thinking about it, and it sure sounds constructive, but it remains to be seen.

We both know that I have no way or influence to poll senators. But I think that would still be the best way to get them on the record. How it would be done, I can't tell you. Middle class individuals like me count for nothing anymore in this country.

then why didn't he fight that RomneyCare corporate mandate bullshit in his own home state?

Why didn't Howard Dean implement single payer in VT. He was Governor for 12 years. Oh, you mean the legislature wouldn't let him.

Why are you suggesting that Kerry has control over a legislative body he is not even part of?

The person probabaly loves to pick on Kerry like others like to pick on Obama.


Facts never get in the way of Kerry/Obama bashing.

That is all we need to know.

Single Payer was never up for debate. it was taken off the table immediately. Proponents of single payer weren't even allowed to voice opinions.

You'd think somebody on a political site would understand the most basic concept of politics in the real world.

And I also "Know" that support can be generated if the pricipals desire it and it wasn't wanted.

They knew not to waste the opportunity on something that would ultimately fail - it just doesn't make sense. We would have no chance AT ALL of reform if this was passed in the House and soundly rejected in the Senate. As it is the barely useful PO couldn't make it through the Senate.

and it is ... Joe Lieberman. Go about 1 minute and 20 seconds in - http://www.verumserum.com/?p=10200 From his very own mouth. Or go back and listen to the Finance committee hearings when any of the public options came up. It was very clear that Conrad would have been a "no", as well as several others.

And we know by common sense and voting record history that its not passable. Its PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that single payer is not passable right now. I wish it was different but thats life.

We can just barely hold 60 with no public option. Surely, single-payer won't be hard to do.

That whole bill, the only cost cutting measure in the whole thing was the public option. The whole damn bill was centered around it. They fought for a year, they couldn't get it through. It's time to accept reality and move on.

And, if they couldn't even get a public option, do you seriously think there's a chance of getting single payer any time soon?

The public option isn't the only way to reduce costs AND get universal coverage at the same time. Read here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-healthy-americans-act_b_301962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-wyden---bennett-healt_b_293117.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/a-plan-for-universal-cove_b_309513.html

then kick Lieberman's back-stabbing ass out of his committee chairmanship (after he votes for it, of course). He'll accuse you of betrayal, but who gives a shit. No one likes him anyway, and when it comes to politics, one good turn deserves another.

No public option. No medicare buy in. No regulation of insurance criminals. No price controls. No elimination of "pre-existing conditions". Nothing left but a forced corporate mandate which was the shittiest idea ever.

See how complicated it is?

... about an hour and a half ago as I was sitting in church. I didn't understand the context, just that that Reid was mad and ready to let the bill "go down!" because of another Lieberman double cross.... and yet there I was stuck listening about Methusala and Jesus and trying to sneak and find out the rest of the story. lol

Or so I thought at the time.

:spank:

Reid is a fifth column mole.