Democrats are spineless
Well, I guess I shouldn't say that statement applies to all Democrats. However, I'm certainly willing to question a good chunk of them after this weekend.
The House passed their version of health care reform, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, this weekend. The bill includes, among other things, a public option to be established by (I believe) 2013. However, it's something that made it in there at the last minute that really shows what could be in store.
The House bill contains the Stupak Amendment, which lays out what is covered and not covered with regards to abortions. Stupak's concern was that he didn't want public funding to pay for abortions. This would mainly be the public insurance option and private companies that participate in the health care exchange also proposed in the bill. The bill originally stated that this could be remedied in a few steps:
- Have providers set up two seperate accounts: one for public money and one for money from premiums. Any abortions covered would be out of the premium account.
- For people who didn't want their premium money potentially going towards funding abortions, there would have to be at least one plan in the exchange that does not cover abortion, as well as one that does.
Problem solved? Not if you're Bart Stupak.
The passed bill includes Stupak's amendments which basically states two very important tidbits:
- Any person or family receiving a government subsidy for health insurance (also included in the bill) is prohibited from purchasing a plan that covers abortions.
- Any insurance comapny that participates in the government exchange is prohibited from covering abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, and the "mother's life being in danger."
Approximately 50% of insurance plans offer some sort of coverage for abortions as of 2008. So basically, if you're a member of Blue Cross/Blue Shield and your plan covers abortions, you would lose this coverage regardless if you get insurance through an employer, through a government subsidy, or even if you pay your entire premium out-of-pocket.
This a serious hit to reproductive rights. But that's not even the part that makes me the maddest. What makes me really angry is that a good percentage of the Democrats who voted for the bill did so despite carrying the "pro-choice" banner. Pelosi, for example, has a voting history that has been scored as 100% pro-choice. But she, along with many Democrats, were so desperate to pass a health care bill that it didn't matter if it clashed with one of the major ideals for many in the party.
So now we're one step closer to "reform." Great. Too bad this is going to do nothing but potentially kill the bill in the Senate and/or anger a good percentage of the pro-choice demographic. Go ahead and celebrate your "victory," Madam Speaker, but some of us see this for what it truly is: selling yourself out to pass something that was nothing more than a self-serving move with the hopes of advancing your political career.
And sadly, that simply makes you one of roughly 540 people in Congress who are just as bad.
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.
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 | |||