Much ado about nothing
Health care reform is the hot topic in the news right now, and it has been for many months. Both Democrats and Republicans agree (for the most part) that the current system is broken, but they can't agree on how to fix it. Nowadays, the big issue is whether or not we're going to see a public health insurance option.
A good number of Democrats, including the high-profile ones (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) support a public health care option. Some more-conservative Democrats and all the Republicans oppose it. It's unlikely that Democrats in the Senate will be able to get the "magic 60" votes needed to end debate and vote on a bill containing a public option. Well that ends that.
Not so fast, my friends. That's where the term "reconciliation" comes into play.
Here's a quick primer on reconciliation, courtesy of Keith Hennessey:
- It only is meant for bills dealing with the budget-related items and germane amendments. Senator Reid instructed two committees last spring to create a bill that reduces the federal deficit by $1 billion over the next five years. (Which, as we've learned over the last year, is a drop in the bucket for the federal government.) A carefully-worded health care bill could achieve this, even if some don't agree with the method for reducing said deficit.
- Only amendments "germane" to the bill may be included. In other words, a health care bill using this procedure cannot include unrelated amendments. (An example of a non-germane amendment would be the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act being inserted into the defense spending bill.)
- Debate is limited to 20 hours. This is the big one. When a bill is introduced normally, debate can continue until 60 senators vote to end it. Unless all the Democrats are in unison on a health care bill (which they won't be), it can be filibustered until it's dead. This means you only need a majority (51 votes) to pass the bill, which is more-feasible.
It's a good idea if you really need to pass something without 60 votes. It's a bad idea if you're trying to promote bi-partisanship. Arlen Specter threw around the idea several months ago, and he's recently said he would only support it as a last resort to pass a bill with a public option. Republicans, as you can imagine, are already threatening a revolt if that happens. Take Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R., Tenn.) comments, for example:
"They either don't know how to operate in a bipartisan way or don't want to operate in a bipartisan way," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.). He warned that if Democrats use a parliamentary tactic called reconciliation to push through a bill by a majority vote in the Senate, "there'll be a minor revolution in this country."
Here's my thought on this: so what?
If you're a Democrat, and if you're absolutely sure that a bill with a public option is best for America and the only way to really reform health care, why not pass a bill through reconciliation. Then, when everyone's happy and insured, you can say, "We took a big risk to get this for you. My opponent did not have your best interests at heart. Vote for me."
And if you're a Republican, it can work the same way. If you're so sure that a public option is going to fail, let the Dems pass it through reconciliation. Then you can say, "My opponent and his/her party did not have your best interests at heart, they didn't improve health care, and they sacrificed bipartisanship to do it. Vote for me." Then you get elected/re-elected, you probably get a majority, and then you can fix health care the way you think it should be fixed.
I have some thoughts on health care, but I'll save them for the jump; this post is getting long enough already. Click on if you want to read them.
My thoughts on health care? I need to see more information on the latest public option being proposed before I weigh in on that, but we do need to cut through a lot of the bureaucracy that exists. A quick story for you: last November, my mom got really sick and had to be rushed to the hospital. The doctors had to operate and remove a chunk of her intestines. A few more hours, and she probably would have died that weekend. She ended up being in ICU for over a week.
Several weeks later, she gets a letter from the insurance company saying they're refusing to pay for her hospital stay. The reason? She stayed in a private room, and since the insurance comapny didn't pay for private rooms, Mom and Dad were on their own for the costs (which were probably astronomical). Here's the thing: the only reason she was put in a private room was because it was the only ICU bed left in the hospital. Even though there was another hospital close by, she couldn't have been taken there because it was out-of-network, meaning (you guessed it) a significant price increase.
After much haggling, the company paid for the room, so this story had a somewhat-happy ending. However, it shouldn't have to be like that with health care. Health care should be about getting the best and most-affordable care possible. It shouldn't have to be about figuring out where to go based on what insurance will cover, especially in life-and-death situations.
Will this reform bill (whatever it is and whenever it comes) fix everything that's wrong with the system? Maybe, maybe not. But something needs to change. Someone needs to take a risk, even if it's 51 senators in Washington.
Recent Greatness
Blogroll
- Extended AIM Profile Terence’s blog
- Profiles in Cuteness
- Shanenanigans Shane Ryan’s blog
- The Elephant Flies at Night
- The Mrs.
Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
November 2nd, 2009 - 18:41
If I had a dollar for each time I have recently heard ‘the health care system is broken’ I could pay for a public option myself. Unfortunately, I do not. But instead I do have some questions: If the system is broken in its current state, what would it look like fixed? Is Health Insurance a right to begin with? If so, where is the line drawn on restrictions, compensations etc? Is the Government capable of being financially responsible? Has Govt Health Care ever worked before?
Tell me I lack compassion, but Health Insurance is no more of a right than Free Shoe Tuesdays or $.10 wings @ Northside grill. Health Insurance is just that – insurance. IF something happens, it is meant to help. There are rules that the providers have, and if you want to play their game, you play their rules. This is what I perceive to be the real heart of the issue. People don’t like the rules that the ‘evil insurance companies’ put in place and as a result those looking to make gain have continued to beat the drum and point out just how horrible these rules & restrictions are. Well my answer to that is – don’t play the game. I don’t like running, so I didn’t ever sign up for soccer or cross country. Since those who hold this belief can’t get away with taxing them into oblivion w/o hurting the people that got them elected, they take an entire industry and then try to compete with it with tax payer money in order to ‘make it better and more accessible’. This is part of the liberal philosophy that gets them the anti-capitalist (aka socialist) title which apparently really gets their panties in a bunch. The history of these endeavors is long and successful. (See the most recent examples of the long dead and beaten horses “Freddie Mac” and “Fannie Mae”) These systems were put in place by the Govt to make sure that people weren’t discriminated against, not because of race or religion, but their financial risk. Businesses would turn these high risk folks down because they would not make money on the loans they offered them because of foreclosure. Businesses must make money to survive, but the Govt apparently can just write ‘measures to reduce the debt’ or print more money and its “ok”. GRRR capitalism bad! The fact is that the Tax Payer took it in the rear over Freddie & Fannie and will continue to do so for years to come because the Govt did not show any financial responsibility in offering this system. The full results from the collapse of these mortgage companies is still not known but it is hardly a coincidence that the collapse of these horrible programs was on the eve of this most recent recession.
Rates, restrictions and rules. At what point will the government, or whatever special interest they farm the management of this ‘system’ out to, realize that the actual cost of the public option FAR EXCEEDS the expectations and be forced to make cuts in cost? The most obvious approach is advising people on what they should be eating, how much they should be exercising, etc all in the name of ‘protecting them from themselves’ for the betterment of society. When advising doesn’t work, when will the tax increases kick in? We all know that’s the way to really get to people – hit’em in the pocketbook. My best guess is that the tax increases and further measures taken will far exceed the current cost that tax payers are doing everyday to afford insurance. Heaven help you if you smoke or drink. The further measures I mention are previewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zh9fibMaEk (Sidenote: I can’t believe I’m posting a link from the ACLU, but it is hardly as far from reality as one may imagine.) I’m not so naive to believe that the Health Insurance companies are truly looking out for us in every way and I don’t believe that the death panels are necessarily true either. However, I believe that Health Insurance is structured in a way to make money, as it should be. If it did not provide an acceptable level of service the nature of capitalism is that it would disappear or adapt.
What other countries have similar policies & plans for Health Care? This is a question that I have no answer. I have heard both sides screaming from the mountain about how horrible or great that things are in Canada, Germany, etc. I would love to see statistical information on this compared to the scale of the US and for there to be taken into account the types of illnesses that are more prevalent here than in other countries.
“Not In My Backyard”. Where are the State’s rights? Assuming that the high population states choose to push the Public Option for their folks, where are the rest of us who do not want it? I don’t pretend to know this for a fact, but I’d say that New York & California, being more liberal states, are much more interested in the Option than say Kansas or Texas. Does this mean that the red states will have the ability to refuse the Option? Therefore saving the govt money or reallocating it for things they deem more useful? I’m guessing this is a take it all or leave it bill which I’ve not had the time to finish up reading. I think the last count I heard was 1990 pages.
It passes or fails but for how long? One of the biggest problem I have with this debate is that it is clearly one that has no end. Whether the strongly liberal Govt we currently have “serving us” (I literally laughed typing that) passes it, how long til the equally strong swing of conservatism comes and nullifies it? Assuming this is the continued path, what is the purpose? I hardly view this as a rock that would weather the current and eventually be smoothly polished. Now more than ever the Health Insurance debate is heated because the needs posed by the boomers. Not coming down on an entire generation, just stating the obvious population shift from the “Greatest Generation”. The success of Capitalism is that the system, when left alone (see GM), really is the survival of the strongest. How ironic that a Darwin style approach doesn’t please those who cling to it for explanation of their origins.
It is not a lack of compassion to say that something is not a right. In a utopia, nobody gets sick or hurt and requires insurance or health care. But we are not, and playing on emotions to gain support for a financially irresponsible bill to succeed in a time where financial instability is apparently at an all time high (see Obama campaign..any speech with the words “Bush” or “W” or “Worst Economic Crisis..”) is just that, irresponsible. “Taking a risk” is exactly what has gotten us into the problems we are in right now with the economy. The government took risk on sub-prime loans and lost. Folks took risks buying homes certain that their value would continue to increase and that they could sell for profit, now they are homeless. At some point you have to calculate the actual risk and cost of your actions, lets try doing that before we act again.
November 2nd, 2009 - 19:00
Having completed all my rambling, I sat my laptop down and observed the latest Mac commercial and I think it summarizes exactly how I feel. The Mac guy congratulates the PC after he bursts with “Windows 7 Is Out!” and the PC promises it won’t have any of he issues of Vista. The astute Mac guy realizes he has heard this before and you see the PC making the same promise from XP back to Windows 2.
I feel very much that this Govt run health care system is in the same vein. There are clear examples of poor management, astronomical spending, and blatant corruption in many Govt programs. However, since the Govt has dropped the Don Johnson look (had to mention it) we are now supposed to believe that they will get it right this time. The fact is that no matter how much you love Obama, he has at most 8 years in office and will hardly be the chair of a committee or director of any health program. I think Mike Rowe is hilarious, but I’m not going to go buy a Ford just because he’s a spokesman. I would hope that the general consensus follows the same thought process.
November 3rd, 2009 - 14:39
Thanks for being the first to actually post on here, Ramsey! We need to meet up sometime soon, maybe in goold ol’ A-Town with Alex.
We can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the current health care system until we’re blue in the face, but the two of us are probably like a good percentage of the rest of the country: our stance on the issue is grounded in a deeper ideology (i.e. our views on government involvement, taxes, etc.), and we’re probably not going to change our mind about it.
But my main point is this: if you’re in a position to make policy and you’re 100% sure that the policy you want to implement is what’s best for the country, why not go ahead and get it done, even if it’s through less-popular means (reconciliation)? On the flipside, if you’re 100% sure the policy the opposition is trying to pass is horrible and will fail, why not let them sacrifice bi-partisanship to pass it, get them out of office next year, and then fix it the way you think it needs to be fixed? In other words, why not give them enough rope to hang themselves?
I think the answer is simple: both parties are scared. The Democrats are scared that their idea could fail, and Republicans are afraid it could work. Hence, why we’re at the current standstill.
November 3rd, 2009 - 19:09
Yea I’d like to make it back up to Asheville…see if Alex can whip us up something yummy.
As for politicians and the real push for policy change vs posturing, I think a great deal of it is the techniques that are used nowadays to win the elected positions they hold. What characteristics do voters truly look at when they are thinking about their representatives? How is the information that they receive about the candidates crafted? I would say roughly 15% of a candidate’s resources go to actually speaking about what and only 5% to how they are going to change things. Easily 80%, depending on the position and how close the races are, tend to go towards smear campaigns that try to demonize the competition based on some votes on previous policy that was held. HERE in lies what I think the issue is. Very few people want to step out on a limb and make something happen because they know at some point they’re going to have to pay the piper and that typically happens during election season.
I’m not calling all politicians gutless or cowards, however there are very few that will step out because they realize that not only will their electorate remember a shift, but their party will as well. Lieberman is far from my favorite politician, same with McCain, but you saw as a result of them voting for or helping craft policy that tended to stray from their D or R respectively.
In essence, I think it is fear. Fear of not getting re-elected. This is a long standing issue I have with our current system. Where is the incentive, better yet urgency for politicians? There are no term limitations on Senate seats, however the President can only serve 2 terms. SO much of the policy that we are shoveled comes from these folks and they’re not even subjected to it. There’s a huge difference in making law for folks when you have a stack of get out of jail cards (literally) and when you know at the end of the day that the laws apply to you.