If that is the case I pose this question for those experts who know the Senate legislation rules. Is it possible that the reform legislation could be broken into two separate elements? The main bill going through the normal process could contain important provisions that would bring an end to such practices as indiscriminate cancellation of policies or denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. That legislation should have a good chance to escape a filibuster because it would not include the public option that conservative Democrats are against. And how could Lieberman and Olympia Snowe be against something so important for the American people?
Then the second part of this process could use the reconciliation procedure to enact legislation solely for the public option since it involves budget matters. It would not be subject to the previous scenario that would result in stripping other provisions. Under the reconciliation rules only 51 affirmative votes would be required and the filibuster would not be in play. Obviously this process is more complicated than my limited interpretation here.
If what I am suggesting is not a new idea, that's fine. What I'm trying to do is spread the word to generate new alternative ways to get this legislation enacted. We have to find a way to get this done for America and beat back the dissenters, for it is long overdue and we cannot fail again.
It would seem that this two-part process might be the way to solve this problem but I will have to leave that to the experts in and out of Congress. Anyone out there think that this might work or is it flawed thinking?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).