If Wyden has leverage, I hope he uses it. He should have a floor vote on his "choice" amendment. They are afraid of it, because they know it will pass. AP's characterization of him being on the liberal end of the spectrum in this debate is mistaken. I don't think he's on either end of it. And "choice" has appeal throughout the spectrum.

Good For Our Senator!

Well done Wyden. What I fail to understand is why the Finance COmmittee Bill is so darned important. Aren't there other Senate bills already passed out of other Senate Committees?

Also, how does Baucus get to 60 democratic senator's votes with West VA (Byrd) and Massachusetts (Kennedy)lacking senators alive or healthy enough to attend?

(Kurt, MA has already appointed a new Democrat to hold the Kennedy seat until the next election. Byrd is in a DC hospital and can and will be brought in on a stretcher for a vote this crucial. He's done it before. In the unfortunate event that he dies, WV law lets the Governor, who is a Democrat, appoint an interim Senator immediately. So not much of a problem there)

Seems to me, Wyden and Rockefeller should hold their noses and vote yes to get the thing out of the do-nothing, incompetent Finance committee, thus ending that hurdle for good. Then the bill can be combined with the strong public option included in the bill that already made it out of the health ed & labor committee, and with the public option sure to pass the House. Enough is enough.

Some few Democrats will vote against the bill itself, and that's all right. I do not believe any of them would be stupid or suicidal enough to sustain a Republican filibuster and go down as the one Senator who committed murder-suicide on the Democratic party. The issue is too popular, especially in the blue dog states like Arkansas, North Dakota, and Montana where those Democrats who get elected are elected on pocketbook issues, not social issues. I don't care how much money the insurance lobbyists gave them, no amount is worth ending their own political careers and bringing down other Senators along with them (and along with that, losing their cushy Congressional health coverage).

And if I'm wrong, they can and should use reconciliation to pass it without needing a cloture vote. This is both the right and the popular thing to do, and the very name of the Democrat who prevents it will replace "Quisling" in the Dictionary as a symbol of treason against party, country, people and God.

Seems to me, Wyden and Rockefeller should hold their noses and vote yes to get the thing out of the do-nothing, incompetent Finance committee, thus ending that hurdle for good.

My thoughts exactly. I actually don't get why they even bother with this committee B.S. when the bills can be changed so drastically on the floor and in the House/Senate merger. Just get it out of the SFC and move on already!

Let's get one thing clear. Wyden is NOT opposed to the Baucus bill for the anything close to the same reasons or as an expression of the same values as Rockefeller. Rockefeller has made it clear he is an ADVOCATE for a public option and will not support any bill, and particularly one with a mandate, unless it has a (strongish) public option. And even Rockefeller's version of a public option is none too good. But his position represents a starting point for something much better in the final bill.

Wyden continues to refuse to affirm he is an ADVOCATE for a public option, which is Rockefeller's basis of opposition. Wyden took two free votes for a public option, but that does not mean or prove he is an ADVOCATE for a public option. SInce those votes Wyden has continued to refuse in public media appearances to unequivocally state he will oppose ANY bill that has a mandate but no public option as Rockefeller has. (He refused to answer that point-blank question on 620 KPOJ last Thursday. It was so obvious the host commented exactly that after Wyden left the air.) Even if Wyden wins, his amendment doesn't get us any closer to something better as Rockefeller's position does. Even if he wins, we could still end up with a mandate without the genuine choice only a public option provides and he hasn't said he would vote against that.

All evidence continues to support a claim that Wyden is a not-too-bright, not-too-likable, two-dimensional, self-serving politician who thought he could get out in front of an issue for his own advantage with his first welfare-for-the-industry bill. He just wasn't smart enough or skilled enough to pull it off before events started to outrun him. So now he has been struggling to gimmick his way into staying relevant with a charade of a "choice" amendment which cynically tries to co-opt the term "choice" for something that is anything but real choice.

At this point, it's appears he is basically pulling the equivalent of showily stamping his feet and holding his breath on an issue that even if he wins, without a strong public option in the mix, gives us little meaningful reform. And he's doing that for consumption in Oregon because it doesn't appear his Senate colleagues are taking him seriously, just seeing him as a crank with his own agenda. And the MSNBC misrepresents even Wyden's choice amendment: The last version that was made public continues to be ambiguous whether ANYONE can reject their employer provided insurance and get a voucher, or if only those whose employer offers insurance that doesn't meet certain requirements. Sort of a "kind-of-a-choice" amendment actually.

I encourage you to keep up this kind of PR for Wyden Kari, nothing makes him look worse.

Setting the Record Straight - this is funny: "I encourage you to keep up this kind of PR for Wyden Kari, nothing makes him look worse." If that were so, you wouldn't publish anti-Wyden screeds over and over and over on BlueOregon for paragraphs on end?

As for your assertion that Wyden is "not-too-bright," virtually everything I have read from the national reporters over the past year says Wyden is viewed as one of the smartest, or the smartest health wonk in the Senate, so your Wyden hatred is carrying you over the edge, again.

I am curious about your premise, though, that Wyden isn't an advocate for public option. I agree that it would be great if he did something other than just vote for the public option, though frankly I'm not necessarily expecting it because it seems obvious that public option has never been close to his main focus in this debate.

There should be some effort to get senators on the record for public option being included in the final senate bill. On the House side there have been one or more letters. Does anyone know if there is a Senate letter? If so, did Wyden sign it? I'm not really big on litmus test letters, but Reid needs to hear there is support for public option, especially from Democrats from the only committee that has rejected it.

Anybody know the answer?

T.A. if you want an analysis of the Public Option watch Doctor Paul Hochfeld on last nights Countdown.

He describes it as a designed to fail program. This is the common practice of status quo politicians like Wyden.

Sorry, no meaning ful changae with Obama.

This is all about Wyden's ego. I am an expert on ego, even though I don't have one to speak of.

I don't intend on hijacking this thread, but Bradley, "As for your assertion that Wyden is "not-too-bright," virtually everything I have read from the national reporters over the past year says Wyden is viewed as one of the smartest, or the smartest health wonk in the Senate, so your Wyden hatred is carrying you over the edge, again."

Interesting that the left is advocating truth over hate-based rhetoric. I refer to the millions of "Bush is stupid" and "Bush isn't smart" comments for the last 8+ years. I understand that those people vehemently disagreed with his policies, but he wasn't and isn't stupid. Truth is important to discussions. Wyden isn't stupid either. But we all agree or disagree with each of them, to varying degrees on various subjects, correct?

And I agree that for many people, hatred carried them over the edge. Perhaps to the point of voting Democrat in the last Presidential election. How long will Bush hatred pay off for the Dems? We shall see....

Yes, Kari, but Wyden's plan will not be a part of the Public Option that you praise.

The good doctor from Corvallis properly points out that only a single payer will save money.

Designed to fail is the correct description.

Rick: did you have a point you wanted to share with us?

rw, I'm not sure what point was missed, but I suppose that the main point is that the "Bush hatred" seems to be a huge motivator for the left, and probably shouldn't be so. Of course, there are many who feel otherwise, but you know someone, or many, who hate the man and thus everything about his history.

Perhaps to be more direct, I think both sides of politics need to get past the personal attacks, and dishonesty and deal with issues. And saying "Wyden is not too bright" is dishonest and not productive. But the same is true for saying it about those you disagree with. I disagree strongly with Barney Frank's work, Mr. Obama's policies (generally) and Nancy Pelosi's partisanship, but I don't say they are stupid or hateful or idiots or more.

Clear now, I hope.

Great, just great. All of the bills deny women full healthcare and yet John F'ing Kerry has teamed up with Senator Wackjob for this:

The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating Senator Baucus' America's Healthy Future Act of 2009. The Kerry-Hatch amendment C-14 titled "Religious Non-discrimination in Health Care" to the Baucus bill prohibits insurers from denying "benefits for religious or spiritual health care" if the "religious or spiritual health care" is "an expense eligible for deduction as a medical care expense as determined by Internal Revenue Service Rulings interpreting section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as of January 1, 2009." http://ffrf.org/action/2009/ spir...thcarebills.php

WTF????

Rick is your typical blathering Repug who wants to obscure his stupidity under the banner of greater civility in politics. He is obviously not too bright, but at least he gets the relationship between Bush and Wyden. Bush = Wyden. Even a not-too-bright right-wing clock is right twice a day.

Did I mention I have no ego and that only I know the real truth?

Well, at least one of those I'm talking to did read my post.

"blathering", "repug" "stupidity", "not too bright"

Hmmm.

Civility is not available on this site? Really??

Do none of the Dems agree that the ad hominem attacks by both sides are counter-productive? Or is it more of the same "I will attack you because you disagree with me"? Just let me know.

Or is it only worth talking to those who agree with you?

For TepidJoe, From Wikipedia

"Troll
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

Again, is the ad hominem attacking getting the conversation anywhere? Seems the attack is simply a way to dismiss the message bearer and change the subject. Is civility not possible on the left?

(Sorry, Rick. This tepidjoe routine is tongue-in-cheek and not intended for you but for the guy who goes by torridjoe. Mr. torridjoe, whoever he is, regularly bends, twists, and fabricates "facts" to criticize some really good people - good people at least from a left point of view. He has been on an anti-Wyden crusade ever since the start of the health care reform effort, even after Wyden voted for public option twice. Prior to that he was on a vicious anti-Merkley campaign, and is persistently on an anti-Kari campaign. I'm just having a little fun with Mr. torridjoe. You and I probably don't agree on much, but we sure agree on the need for far more civility here and elsewhere. You must not come around here much. BlueOregon is infested with a handful of uncivil torridjoes who make this is far less pleasant and informative environment than it should be.)

I'm warmed! And thank you for your explanation.

I agree on this, at least, that politics can be civil and I have a very hard time with blues and reds who don't recognize that.

You made points with a red today with your explanation. Thanks again, and I hope we meet some day.

Dear tepidjoe: do I qualify as a bad blue dog? :(

And Rick: yah, I'm with you on that hating junk. The bogeyman is us. ALL of us. I realize that as deep as my depression and disbelief was when Bush was elected again, that solidly hard is the rage and disbelief of the Right wing now. They truly believe their world is going to shred, shrivel or explode directly because of Obama. They truly believe he is destroying the face of America as shown to the world.

Just as we on this side of the teeter totter feel threatened and debilitated by such as Bush.

So where does that leave you, leave the world if that is the sum total of your experiencing and response set?

All blue dogs are not only bad, they are morally corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and not-too-smart or even remotely likable. You are a pox on this forum, rw, and I suggest you hand in your keyboard.

I want to keep listening, reading and talking. I want to take the best of any options. Healthcare and insurance included. I'm not only in one camp, and am open to a mix of solutions. I wish everyone felt the same.

Every president is less than ideal, and the degree is completely open to perception. Thus the differences.

I do feel that the left think that the right are evil and the right think the left are wrong. And I think that the approach of the left in this description is disingenuous and divisive. Attacks of the right are de rigueur for the left. And those on the right who are attack dogs are wrong as well. I understand both sides lack of patience with the many trolls and attackers. But have a hard time accepting what amounts to a lack of compromise.

Just wait, someone here will say something like "Repubs didn't compromise, so why should we! Screw 'em!". But the facts seem to indicate that the politicians we elect may be better at compromise than we, the people. I think that compromise is necessary and perhaps, now that the left is fully in power, they are going to learn a hard lesson that Repubs may have recently learned. That dogmatism is repulsive to much of America, especially the critical middle 20%.

That's what we'll say, alright. Well, technically you Bush Repugs did compromise with some fake Dems, but Blue Dogs don't count. Are you still here? What part of uncivil don't you understand? Don't make me go torrid on yo' ass.

Hey Tepid, I hate to say it, it's really true: I was actually out in a huge cottonwood grove in MT when the concept of Blue Dogs hit the air and I honestly don't know what the feck one is. I'm not admitting this to anyone else.

So while I was fetching up on the bad dawg thingie, well, could you tell me what a blue dawg is before I go any further? I just figured that blue dog was a euphonious rhythmic play upon the bad dawg in my mind's eye....

Jeez Tepid. We get our first conciliatory reddie and you go all crazy and shite.

Eek.

Rick, I have to point out some whitewash in your discourse. So we think they are evil, and they only think we are wrong?

Ummmmmm... Apparently you have not been undercover in some of the locales I have been. There is rage at both extremes, and sordid characterizations, judgement and pursed assholes aplenty to go around.

Rightwing rhetoric spewing from Palin's mouth did not stop at merely "wrong"....... suggesting that you fully own the absolutely terrifying extremism and violence at your end of the pogo stick. I surely do poke regularly at the vitriol-filled ones over here on mine....

Just looking at that one word-set: it's not adequate, what do you think?

Last discussion on the Baucus bill, Kari noted that the Republicans need "41 Senators" to keep a filibuster going.

Historically, the President of the Senate AKA the Vice President of the United States has been extremely reluctant to be the willing 101st Senate vote on legislation unless it is a tight vote regarding the US Budget.

Think about what would happen if Joe Biden established the precedent of an active Vice President who willingly and eagerly votes as the 101st Senate vote when it comes Presidential prerogatives. Think about how Republicans would follow the mold and use the VP to pass through their legislation...

I shudder at the prospect of an active VP because they are elected as a member of the Executive Branch, not an unelected member of the US Senate.

As for reconciliation, regularly using this to pass major legislative initiatives would have drastic consequences because it would basically mute out all voice that the minority may have regarding legislation at hand. The minority's influence is centered squarely on the filibuster and Reconciliation precludes it.

Reconciliation is a legislative gimmick normally used with the VP voting to pass a US Budget. Reconciliation basically means that you only need a vote of 50 out of the 100 US Senators to pass Budget legislation or legislation related to the Budget.

The consequences for using both the VP as the 101st unelected US Senator (he is elected to the Executive Branch) and using Reconciliation to pass Presidential prerogatives would be a disastrous course. Why?

1. Constitutional conflict. This would open up a whole new landscape in case law that may weaken the office of the Vice President and rule that Reconciliation under any circumstance violates the US Constitution, thus forth it can no longer be used under any circumstance.

2. Establish precedent that the Republicans will use against Democrats once they have the Presidency and a majority in the US Senate again.

3. Squash minority voices in the legislative process. If it is only a majority vote, then why should the minority participate at all if they will have no voice in the final legislation?

Think twice before advocating for an active VP and regularly using budget Reconciliation to pass major legislation.

"As for reconciliation regularly using this to pass major legislative initiatives would have drastic consequences because it would basically mute out all voice that the minority may have regarding legislation at hand"

Earlier in this decade, if memory serves, reconciliation was used successfully to pass Bush tax cuts and unsuccessfully to start drilling for oil in ANWR. Ryanleo, if you were against that also, you are consistent. If not, you are just another partisan saying "wrong when they do it, OK when our guys do it".

The bill Rockefeller would let through--public option but no free choice amendment--would be a significant victory for American health care. The bill Wyden would let through--free choice but no public option--would be a disaster for the country, and ultimately for his party.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Wyden's "Free Choice" proposal would actually make a substantial meaningful step toward addressing that. Rather than opening up the public option to some 5% of Americans, Wyden's proposal would open it up to 100% of Americans.

I don't understand, how does Free Choice w/o a public option do this? Doesn't Wyden have to support both to deliver on his rhetoric?

And a nitpick I know, but "full disclosure" usually means the disclosure is part of the text of the article, not posted as a comment that maybe 10% of visitors actually read.

Like I said, nitpick. Sorry to be annoying I do appreciate that you include the disclosure. I've just never seen important information like that put in the comments of an article. Regular readers I'm sure understand the relationship, and that is a credit to your integrity. But someone who clicks on a google search result and reads just the article, or reads via syndication, or gets an article forwarded to them, would never see it.

And yes I know he has voted for the PO, what I'm referring to by "support" (bad choice of words on my part) is any acknowledgment from him that it's crucial for both reforms to be in the legislation for either one to have the desired effect. Or make a different argument, but at least make an argument.

I've called his office multiple times the past few months and his staff can never give me a clear explanation of his view on the importance of a PO as part of health care reform. Is it more important than a public exchange? Less important? The same?

Would you agree that Wyden is concentrating on health care insurance reform, rather than health care reform?

I had very high expectations for his leadership on this issue as he's wicked smart, understands the broader issues involved and is positioned in a good place to affect change (on Finance and the Health Care subcmty). It's a big disappointment to me that he was not able to get more done in Finance, even if only making noise and turning up the pressure on Baucus.

He's also chair of the Int'l Trade and Global Competitiveness subcmty, how about using that pulpit to make that case that comprehensive (if not "radical") health care reform is req'd to make us more competitive in the global marketplace? I mean, the guy has lots of arrows in his quiver, I'd would have liked to see him fire a few before this thing goes to the senate floor.

Cascade Gene, don't be stupid. Kari has flags all over the place letting us know that he builds the webs for most of the politicians he discusses. How could you miss it if you were merely a cursory reader?

Say something meaningful.

I thought I was pretty nice about it, and also gave him credit for the disclosures he makes. I also think that I made some decent points for why it should be included in the text of the article rather than as a comment.

So at the least I was polite, something I can't say for you.

If you'd like to respond to the meat of my comment, like discussing Wyden as health care reform advocate and his effectiveness thereof, or perhaps debate the question of whether he is pursuing health care reform vs. health care insurance reform, then fire away. Otherwise I'll wait for someone else to drop by that has a little more to say.

Miss Tremolo is saying Kari leaves notes everywhere you look to trip over. Why does he have to do it a different style? In my line of work as soon as you change your tempates for some terrible problem one group has with it, some OTHER group is screaming from how wrong and ill-thought-out it all is...

This is why Kari is smart to split up comments to address separate points. Harder for the discussion to get sidetracked. I think I'll do that in the future.

Also I'll send my suggestions for site improvements to the editors rather than post them as a comment. Lessons learned.

<h2>Let's discuss health care reform, shall we?</h2>