Originally posted by wittywonkaAll 58 Democrats and two independents voted to break the filibuster on the bill, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released Wednesday night. The Nevada Democrat took parts of proposals passed earlier this year through two congressional committees to build the sweeping $848 billion proposal.
Source?
Actually, the final vote was 60-40, anyway, wasn't it? So it wouldn't have mattered whether the cloture vote were 60-38 or 60-40.
The Republicans mustered 39 votes. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, did not vote.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-care-bill-democrats-overcome-gop-filibuster-bid/story?id=9141122
From Landmark: The Inside Story of America's New Health Care Law and What It Means for Us All, page 44:
"Everyone was furious, furious," said one lawmaker in the room. "We're not going to meet Joe Lieberman's demands."
At best, Reid had 58 "yes" votes, two shy of what he needed--and he had yet to begin serious negotiations with the Senate's other great weaver, Ben Nelson (Neb.).
Reid was subdued, but visibly upset.
"Lieberman just wasn't honest with me," he said. "I can't believe he did this."
Some in the room spoke of going back to the bargaining table with Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine); others said, "Screw it, we may not have a bill."
[...]
Grudgingly, they agreed to cut a deal with Lieberman--but it would be the last.
"Okay, let's get right to it," Reid said when Lieberman arrived. "We need your vote. I want to know clearly what you want."
Lieberman reiterated his demands: no public option, no Medicare expansion*. Other minor items were on his list, but those were the two issues on which he would not compromise.
"I understand your position," Reid said. "I'm not happy about it, but I've got to deal with it." The public option was already gone, and he would drop the Medicare buy-in.
In return, they extracted a pledge from Lieberman: This was it. No more reasons to vote against the bill.
They had a deal.
___
*A provision by which, as far as I understand it, people aged 55-64 could agree to a sliding fee to opt into the Medicare program before reaching age 65.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194153
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, apparently I was wrong about the Maine sisters. And I'm confused, because I thought Kennedy's death meant that there were only 59 in the Democratic caucus and they needed at least one Republican. But you're right. There were 60 votes and none of them Republicans.
All 58 Democrats and two independents voted to break the filibuster on the bill, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released Wednesday night. The Nevada Democrat took parts of proposals passed earlier this year through two congressional committees to build the sweeping $848 billion proposal.
The Republicans mustered 39 votes. Sen. George Voinovi ...[text shortened]... /abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-care-bill-democrats-overcome-gop-filibuster-bid/story?id=9141122
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194153
Originally posted by wittywonkaWell, the insurance industry is largely based in Connecticut, which is one of the reasons I think Dodd is out. He bucked them. Lieberman caved.
From Landmark: The Inside Story of America's New Health Care Law and What It Means for Us All, page 44:
"Everyone was furious, furious," said one lawmaker in the room. "We're not going to meet Joe Lieberman's demands."
At best, Reid had 58 "yes" votes, two shy of what he needed--and he had yet to begin serious negotiations with the Senate's ...[text shortened]... liding fee to opt into the Medicare program before reaching age 65.
Originally posted by wittywonkaI suppose when one attends too many Tea Party rallies one tends to lose connection with reality, so I assume johnbutler's disregard for accurate statistics is only natural.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/12/29/majority-either-like-healthcare-law-or-want-it-more-liberal
Not to mention the obvious fact that opinions have likely evolved since 2010.
Originally posted by KunsooThat's why the House passed the Senate bill as is and then made changes through the reconciliation process rather than have a joint committee bill that Brown would have given the Republicans the 41st vote to filibuster.
Okay, apparently I was wrong about the Maine sisters. And I'm confused, because I thought Kennedy's death meant that there were only 59 in the Democratic caucus and they needed at least one Republican. But you're right. There were 60 votes and none of them Republicans.
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe Democrats have the weakest party discipline in the history of the planet. A cloture vote is a procedural one and they can't even keep their party members in line on procedural votes? If Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieux and Nelson insisted on voting against the final bill that was their call, but threatening to join the Republicans on a procedural vote to scuttle health care reform is political high treason. That they got away with it without any consequences from the party is appalling.
From Landmark: The Inside Story of America's New Health Care Law and What It Means for Us All, page 44:
"Everyone was furious, furious," said one lawmaker in the room. "We're not going to meet Joe Lieberman's demands."
At best, Reid had 58 "yes" votes, two shy of what he needed--and he had yet to begin serious negotiations with the Senate's ...[text shortened]... liding fee to opt into the Medicare program before reaching age 65.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194153
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe jury's still out. I'll see how it works when all the provisions come into play. So far it's not sweeping me off my feet.
I agree.
With that said, do you or do you not agree that the act creates a health care/insurance system better than the system previously in existence?