Somebody Explain ? Reid voted AGAINST medicare?

A fellow I know posted that his prescriptions under medicare were costing him a huge amount.

I heard on the radio this morning that legislation that would have allowed Medicare to bargain with the drug companies for lower benefits that had passed the house did not get to the floor in the senate.

The fellow I know is from a Red State and I wanted to point out his senators both voted against lowering his drug bill.

However when I went to look at the vote it looks like HARRY REID? voted against it too??

This is really confusing me. Can someone explain?

http://www.senate.gov/...

•  Explaination

  Harry, is deep in the pockets of big pharma. Explain to me how having a democratically controlled congress is any different from a Republican controlled congress?

  by born socialist on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:09:31 AM PDT

  •  The Democratically-Controlled Congress...

    ...has actually taken their oversight responsibilities seriously.  How many hearings did the Republican-controlled Congress have on corruption?  Let me give you a hint:  It was less than 1...

    by Ken in MN on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:14:06 AM PDT

    •  What good has any of these hearings done?

      Corruptrion is still widespread, the war is still being funded, the banking moguls are still not in jail and Bush still isn't impeached.

      Hearings don't mean anything, they're just sideshows for appeasement purposes.

      by born socialist on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:20:23 AM PDT

      •  "The banking moguls are still not in jail"

        Funny stuff.  

        At any rate, Waxman has done a terrific job on the oversight committee.  It's not a function that produces dividends right away, but sunshine is always good in the political process.

        by burrow owl on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:38:25 AM PDT

      •  Oversight hearings...

        are just to shut us up.

        "What are you peasants complaining about? We're having hearings over here. Sure, we'll stop the hearings before any real wrongdoing is exposed, and certainly no one will be held accountable for anything, but shut up anyway mmkay?"

        by robroser on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:38:35 AM PDT

      •  Not in jail

        It is not Congress's job to put people in jail, although "inherent contempt" soulnds nice right now.
        Congress has the responsibility of passing laws that cover future actions. The Do"J" has the responsibility of enforcing the laws against those who broke them in the past.

        by Frank Palmer on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:29:24 AM PDT

    •  ????????????????

      How many have been resolved?

      Let me give you a hint:  It was less than 1...

      by 0hio on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:23:01 AM PDT

    •  Well, to the both of Yooz...

      ..."Patience, Daniel-San..."

      You gotta crawl before you can walk.  The level and depth of the Bush Crime Family taint will take decades to unravel.  how can you honestly expect results overnight?

      by Ken in MN on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:33:14 AM PDT

      •  To Ken..

        The world can't wait for walking lessons.

        by born socialist on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:35:59 AM PDT

        •  But justice can...

          ...and must wait for the proper development of evidence.  Otherwise, we are no better than them...

          Look, I'm all for rounding up every one of those fucks and throwing them in Gitmo for the rest of their miserable lives.  But only with eveidence, due process and a trial by a jury of their peers.  I still believe in the rule of law.  It's the only thing that separates us from the animals in the GOP...

          by Ken in MN on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:39:04 AM PDT

          •  Don't hold your breath...

            waiting for all of those trials. The ruling class takes care of its own.

            by robroser on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:39:45 AM PDT

  •  I know cynicism makes you appear oh-so smart

    But this was actually Reid's own bill.

    by Elwood Dowd on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:36:25 AM PDT

  •  its no different because..

    its all corporate control, and the corporations have not stopped funding their candidates, nor have they been defeated in any elections.  For them its business as usual, and they continue in relentless pursuit of their bottom lines, their bonuses, and when things go really bad, their bailouts, and to hell with anyone else.  

    We cannot exchange corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats and expect anything else.

    by billybam on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

•  I have had similar questions about the way.,,

  he votes at times and have been told that it is a procedural gimmick that will allow him to bring the bill up for another vote at a future time.

  by irate on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:09:46 AM PDT

  •  Ya beat me! n/t

    by Ken in MN on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:12:05 AM PDT

  •  He sure seems to be taking his time

    bringing it back up for consideration.

    The powder is so dry it's almost...non-existent.

    by happiness cat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:29:42 AM PDT

    •  They've got a lot of other stuff to do.

      If Reid spent more time on this bill, I have no doubt we'd be deluged with diaries about how Reid can't manage time, has some kink for this bill, yada yada yada.

      by burrow owl on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:39:47 AM PDT

•  He may have voted against it as...

  ...a procedural move, in order to bring the bill up for reconsideration at a later date, which you can only do if you originally voted against it.  He does that all the time, as leader...

  by Ken in MN on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:11:04 AM PDT

  •  Yeah - that is the correct answer!

    by moose67 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:12:53 AM PDT

  •  Maybe it had to do with Senator Grassley

    who said he would filibuster it.  Apparently if you are a Republican and just whisper "filibuster" to Harry, he rolls right over.  If you are a Democrat you actually have to do the filibuster.

    http://www.capitolupdate.org/...

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:17:00 AM PDT

  •  Frist did that

    constantly. I think i remember him doing that for the Federal Marriage Amendment and wondering why. That's why

    by nrafter530 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:24:14 AM PDT

•  It's procedural requirement.

  Something like the following: the only way he can bring the cloture motion back up is if he votes to defeat cloture.  It's procedural maneuvering, and something he needs to do to be able to bring the bill back.

  by burrow owl on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:13:00 AM PDT

•  He must have made a deal with someone

  I check a few sites and he Co-Sponsor on this bill!

  http://www.govtrack.us/...

  by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:14:09 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the explanation guys.

  That at least makes some sense.

  by Hollowdweller on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:32:55 AM PDT

•  People are correct that he voted nay so he

  could bring it back up

  Reid eventually changed his vote to "nay" when it was clear that the cloture vote was going to fail. Voting against the bill and making a floor motion to reconsider allows Reid to bring the measure back for another vote at some point in the future.

  (As Huckabee would say, that's why God made Google)

  by joynow on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:36:46 AM PDT

•  Senate Rule 13

  "When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration...."

  by Glenn in NYC on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:58:19 AM PDT