do we need 60 votes for health care again?

They have to do some crunching and do away with deals to get the 51 and reconciliation. It is a complicated matter and if they do that.....well let's put it this way. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

AMERICA IS PISSED either way! If the dems hope to RECOVER ANYTHING AT ALL..they won't do that.

BUT they don't have any common sense...so everyone will get screwed...unions, lobbyists, pharmacy companies etc. ALL THOSE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT ON SUPPORT FOR THEM is going to have to be trashed...along with state kickbacks. You think AMERICA IS PISSED NOW? Wait until the deals are closed down....they won't be able to walk down the street safely....instead of 70 percent being pissed off....the rest of them will add to it.

Dems are finished now....they are throwing themselves off the cliff ....sit back and watch them destroy themselves....nothing they do will save them now. THEY KNOW IT TOO!

They will try...but this is unconstitutional and they know it. Lawsuits are waiting to be served if they do anything...........it is going to get ugly...very ugly because AMERICANS run this country..NOT THE GOVERNMENT...and AMERICANS can fix this and will!

Democrats on Capitol Hill are dusting off the so-called "nuclear option," the latest sign that their health care push could be derailed by a Republican win in Tuesday's surprisingly competitive special election for Massachusetts senator.

The procedural move known as reconciliation, called the "nuclear option" because it would shut down a GOP filibuster, has been discussed by Democrats since last year as a last resort to pass health care reform legislation intended to lower health costs and cover millions of uninsured Americans. President Obama has made it his domestic policy priority.

Democrats hold a commanding majority in the House, and in the Senate, their 60 votes are enough to avoid a filibuster. But the balance could change if Republican Scott Brown beats Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday to win the late Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat.

If Republicans win, Obama and Democratic congressional leaders would have a political window of perhaps days if they were to try ramming a final bill through the Senate -- at considerable risk of incurring public wrath. All 40 Republicans are opposed to the legislation out of concern that it costs too much and increases the government's role in the health care industry.

Democrats clearly are weighing their options.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Bloomberg this week that Democrats are still considering reconciliation, a tactic that allow certain legislation to pass in the Senate with just 51 votes, or a simple majority. The House Ways and Means Committee structured the bill so the Senate could tuck the legislation into the annual budget spending package, leaving the door open to reconciliation.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said.

But choosing that option means Democrats would have to strip the legislation of items not related to the budget because of Senate rules.

Another option is to scrap the current negotiations between the White House and Democratic leaders from both chambers on differences between the House and Senate version and persuade enough House members to pass the Senate version as is, making another Senate vote unnecessary.

But that could unravel the fragile deal negotiators reached with union leaders, who vehemently oppose taxing high-end insurance plans that many of their members have to pay for the legislation. And there are other unresolved sticking points, including abortion and coverage of immigrants, deals with states and lobbyists.

Sorry this is becoming a debate forum.

I really would like to know that if the democratics go back to 51 votes (heck 50 votes! and let Biden cast the tie breaker) if we can pass healthcare.

Since I as a liberal WANT full public options. I don not care if the insurance companies cannot compete, I just want to buy a superior plan regardless from whom.

Every bill the Democrats pass with 60 votes infuriate the democratic base - they are too weak and worthless "better than nothing" bills and Republicans will whine regardless.

If we could go back in time (4 months ago?) when we had a great bill with 51 votes.. let the fillabustering start.. we might already have a good healthcare plan?

Ok, so here is the question again:

Can we pass healthcare with 51 votes? If so, how long will filabustering continue?

(If it is less than the 22 months of debate then we could have it done in time for the bll to start!)

Not necessarily 60 votes, although this would be nice. The Democrats in the Senate could still rush a bill through prior to any swearing in, although I'm still pretty hopeful our Democrats (who outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 in Massachusetts) will understand how crucial this voting is and elect Coakey to fill Senator Ted Kennedy's prestigious seat. Or the Senate could push a few individual items through with only a 51-vote majority, called the Reconciliation or Budget Reconciliation process, which is what the totalitarian Republicans used most often. In order to do this Reconciliation with health care, though, the amendments or provisions would have to be written in such a way as to be related to budget. This is preferrable to not getting anything passed. I just want my dear, disorganized Democrats to keep their newfound BACKBONE and forge ahead to help the American people and to help President Obama succeed in helping this nation, its economy, and its citizens.

If a minimum of 60% of the country is in choose of a public decision, you will think of Congress might get the memo; yet they have not. we are residing in a majoritarian society hence if maximum persons needs a public decision, we could continuously get a public decision. And your phraseology of the question exhibits how ignorant you're. between the MCs (contributors of congress) who might vote against that's black, so if you are going to make a race declare (no matter how sarcastic it would be) you extra effective look on the information before you're making a fact. And what the **** is it with human beings spelling Obama with an 0 incredibly of the letter 'O'. Did we spell Bush like this: bUsh? No, because of the fact we've slightly admire for the commander in chief, in spite of occasion association. i assume, in accordance to Fox information, on the grounds which you have not got any admire for the workplace of the President, you hate united statesa. now.

It Brown wins, dem will try to make it 51

What we need is a miracle.

I'm betting you already have health care. Am I right?