What are the chances the major news outlets will challenge Byrd on this?

Damn. Byrd made a whole lot more sense back in his post-church bombing days.

zOMFG!

Hill and Bill almost used reconciliation in order to pass their health care reforms?

But they didn't?

Cos Byrd stopped them?

This is an "uncovered shocker" according to Breitbart?

LOL.

This is why Spud calls him Not-So-Brightbart.

Be Well.

Like every other "well-intentioned" Democrat, Byrd will reverse himself and what little convictions he has left in his withered body to try get the "win". This healthcare fiasco has damaged many people with a "D" next to their moniker. Hopefully, it wil happen to this guy too, the old cross-burning codger.

SPUD-
The shocker is how relatively silent Sen Byrd is today vs back in '01. He no doubt has his reasons... and that was the point of my post #1.

The shocker is how relatively silent Sen Byrd is today vs back in '01.

The Health Care situation in the US is much worse now than it was back in 2001.

The GOP are far less bipartisan as well.

Reconciliation is the only way HC Reform is gonna pass now.

The real shocker is how many people have been turned off of HC reform due to it's demonization in the RW press.

When you ask people about the things that HC reform is gonna do they agree with it.

When you call it Obama care those numbers plummet.

Suppose Spud shouldn't be too shocked by how manipulative the MS is in the US nor by how many people fail to see through it's corporate agenda.

And yet Spud is.

Be Well.

When you call it Obama care those numbers plummet.

#6 | Posted by dethspud

Rename it Palin Care. It seems people can't get enough of her.

Equating passing legislation via reconciliation with what's going on with HC today is completely disingenuous. The HC bill in the House and the one in the Senate have already been passed. The use of reconciliation to handle the differences is appropriate.

This misapplication of context and fact is a blatant lie. That's what Breitbart does, day in and day out. And the Right, without thinking, without going past the super-superficial buys into it, propagates it and is complicit.

There is absolutely nothing in what Byrd said that was incorrect, nor is it in any way applicable to what's happened with the HC bill today.

SPUD-
There's universal agreement that the present isn't perfect and can be improved. Even my man crush, Rush, agrees. ;^0

It's the size and scope of change that BHO and Co desire that people don't want. That's what makes it so controversial.

It's the size and scope of change that BHO and Co desire that people don't want. That's what makes it so controversial.

The size and scope of the problem requires a equally large solution.

Most of the complaints about Obama's HC reform is because it doesn't do enough not because it does too much.

Be Well.

"Most of the complaints about Obama's HC reform is because it doesn't do enough not because it does too much." - SPUD

Agreed.

Then how do you square that with your thought in post #6? The GOP are far less bipartisan as well.

It would seem to me, then, that if a good bit of the complaint with BHO is that he doesn't go far enough, then that tells me there is just as much partisianship coming from stage left. Are you going to tell me that each and every Senate Dem is truly behind this bill... or are they going along with majority lest they get their balls cut off?

I've used this analogy before relative to the healthcare debate. If my roof leaks I don't reflexively tear down the house and totally rebuild it. Such monumental change isn't necessary. Repair the roof... make modifications. And then, if those don't show sufficient results, consider a larger initiative. BHO's going from zero to 60 too quickly and, IMO, unnecessarily.

Then how do you square that with your thought in post #6? The GOP are far less bipartisan as well.

Easily.

The reason that Obama' plan doesn't go far enough is precisely because of the extremely partisan nature of the GOP. They keep asking for concessions which Obama gives into then they still don't vote for the bill.

The sad fact that the HC industry, including the Big Insurers, donates gobs of cash to pols on both sides of the aisle is also a huge factor there.

Be Well.

"Such monumental change isn't necessary."

We now pay much more than any other nation for health care yet we rank 37th. We pay more than any other nation yet have many millions uninsured. We have thousands of deaths yearly which can be attributed directly to lack of health insurance.
I'd say the question isn't whether or not we need "monumental change" but if this bill is monumental enough.

"37th"

Ten year old data.

In 2009 relative life expectancy was 49th.

I see we have more "barkings from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan" here.

Byrd was against reconciliation for the entire Bill, but this is the perfect tool for making changes to a Bill that has already passed the Senate.

Turn out the lights
The party's over
They say that
All good things must end
Call it tonight
The party's over
And tomorrow starts
The same old thing again

#16

Glenbeckistanian National Anthem

We are still number one in health care cost, though.

#14 | Posted by Zatoichi

We're number 1. We're number 1. We're number 1.

#5 | Posted by OohRah at 2010

Actually Byrd has spoken on the use of reconciliation for this HC bill.

He is consistent in that it is not meant for this type of legislation and shouldn't be used for such..

Actually Byrd has spoken on the use of reconciliation for this HC bill.
He is consistent in that it is not meant for this type of legislation and shouldn't be used for such..

Uh. Wrong. Perhaps you missed "Glennbeckistan?"

Byrd's letter to the Charleston Daily Mail:

"I believed then, as now, that the Senate should debate the health reform bill under regular rules, which it did," Byrd wrote. "The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch." "Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation."