|
|
|
It's "Reconciliation" time.
The Web site for the award-winning alternative weekly, the Philadelphia City Paper.
It's "Reconciliation" time.
Filed Under: News
 |
| CNN |
If you missed yesterday's health care "Summit," you missed quite a show.
Tuning in at any one point, the summit might have sounded intolerably, mind-bogglingly boring – but that was part of what made it so fascinating. President Obama presiding, Democrats and, more importantly, Republicans were forced to discuss the president's health care bill on its merits, rather than being able to spit half-truths (or outright falsehoods, a la "death panels") in private.
And whatever you think of the president's proposal, I think the pres gets a nod for what was nothing less than a herculean display of endurance, fielding (and, often, swatting down like flies) Republican attacks on his plan and their claims to have something better to offer.
I'm putting on my columnists hat: they don't. Republican leadership (I won't be so rash as to write off the entire party) does not care about covering the uninsured.
They don't care now, they didn't care for the last ten years, and they aren't going to care six months from now if, as they propose, the congress scraps the health care bill and starts anew.
The president's bill – like the bills proposed in the House and Senate – is insufficient and problematic. But it's better than what we have now, and it opens the door to more and better reform in the future. Most importantly, it will make coverage possible for millions of people who can't get it now, among them the unlucky and sick – and we the healthy have a special responsibility to those people.
The Democrats should proceed with "reconciliation," - the rather slyly-named procedure that would allow them to pass the president's bill, or something like it, with a simple majority.
And in anticipation of the hue and cry that this is somehow a travesty of democracy (so, by that token, is the fact that another mere procedure - the filibuster - has held the legislative process hostage), I'd point out that:
- COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which allows employees who lose coverage the right to continue group benefits for a limited time . . . was enacted through reconciliation.
- A Major expansion of Medicaid in 1997 was done through reconciliation.
- CHIP, the very popular Children's Health Insurance Program was passed through reconciliation.
- And it's not just the Democrats who've used it: Republicans used reconciliation to pass . . . the Bush tax cuts.
OH LOOK! Rep. Eric Massa to resign "Democratic Rep. Eric Massa will resign from Congress on Monday, only days after reports first surfaced that the freshman New York lawmaker was under investigation by the House ethics committee for allegedly sexually harassing a male staffer." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34001.html) Charlie Rangel should be next! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33884.html)
Suggestion to anyone interested in a worm hole to understanding the philosophical routes of the healthcare issue: The Constitution Center is hosting a Moot Court regarding the rationing of health care. It should be fairly complex and they don't dumb down so come ready to think. The details are at the link below but the panel includes some very distinguished judges including Third Circuit Judge and PA First Lady Midge Rendell. The mock lawyers are Kenneth Star and Nina Pillard. It is free but you have make reservations. It goes down Saturday at 1PM down the street from the Constitution Center at 5th and Arch. Here is the link: http://constitutioncenter.org/ncc_calen_Landing.aspx?code=3484
Oh look! There it is - the republicans "do not care" argument again. Using that logic, democrats "do not care" about national defense, or rewarding hard work in a free market system. Democrats want to gut our military and handicap anyone who is more successful than anyone else because success equals greed, selfishness and insensitiviy. See how silly that sounds? Just because someone is advocating less taxes & regulation in a certain area, doesn't mean they "do not care". Republicans want lawsuit abuse reform and the ability of insurance companies to compete freely across state lines, and they don't want an alphabet soup of new government bureaucracies squandering billions of dollars through new red tape trying to address our healthcare problems. Let's think about healthcare a little more rationally & pragmatically...instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that more government is the answer.
Hey Sally, Thanks for the comment and the debate. Here's what I would put back to you:
Sure, the Republicans do care – about military spending; about guns; about abortion; about tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy).
That's well and good. But I maintain that they *don't* care whether John McUninsured gets health care. It simply isn't a priority for Republicans - or even desirable, if anyone but John McUninsured is asked to share the burden of his insurance (he's got a pre-existing condition, the poor guy). Ultimately, The Republican Party doesn't believe health care is a right.
Now, maybe you don't either – fair enough.
But I think a lot of Americans do. And it doesn't appear to me that the Republicans have doodly-squat to offer them.
It'd be one thing if the GOP just came out and said so – but, correctly sensing that might not come off well, they've chosen instead to stall the Democrats' legislation, trying to fling enough muck around to keep everyone too busy wiping the manure out of their eyes to get much done.
I have insurance, and that makes me lucky – not responsible, not worthy, just lucky. The way I see it, it's just not the American Dream that our fellow citizens should live or die or suffer or be well by the toss of the dice.
Thanks for a lively conversation. - IsaiahRegardless of where you stand on the reform bills, reconciliation is hardly out of the ordinary for bills like this. NPR's Julie Rovner has probably the best analysis of the use of reconciliation in health care reform. Here's the key quote: "'In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process,' says Sara Rosenbaum, who chairs the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985
Republicans care about health care for everyone, they just don't believe a government-run health care system is a fundamental right for everyone. Misinterpreting and warping this fact into "republicans don't care about people without healthcare" may con the uneducated, but most polls clearly show most people aren't being conned. Again, republicans are offering tort (lawsuit abuse) reform, competition across state lines, and people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance through high-risk pools. To dismiss these radical game changing ideas and say republicans are offering nothing, and believe that Obama-care is the answer....is well, typical kook-left politics.
Isaiah I have an idea - let's use the NUCLEAR OPTION to pass a radical healthcare policy bill, instead of a bill that reconcilitation is really meant to be used on (ie. tax / budget bills), that is supported by only 25% of the American public...yeah real smart!
Sally, the nuclear option, as you put it, was the elimination of the filibuster with regard to judicial nominees. And for the most part, this health care bill will pass through normal channels - it has achieved 60 votes in the Senate, and will have to pass the House (which is, to be sure, the difficult part). A handful of amendments to the Senate bill that have an impact on the budget will be passed through reconciliation. There is nothing radical about this. After all, Bush's tax $1.3 trillion (with a T) tax cuts for the wealthy were passed through reconciliation, without a single cent in offset spending, and look where his budgetary moves landed us. Is it really so incredible to pass a fully paid-for $900 billion bill that will ensure 30 million Americans? (Seriously, insuring that many people will require a government outlay. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or woefully ill-informed.)As for the public, in every poll, support goes up once the actual contents of the legislation are described. And indeed, elections are right around the corner. It's very possible Dems will lose - whether they pass a bill or not. If you're going down, I say go down swinging.
Nice try Tom. Let's review what Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, one of the AUTHORS of the reconciliation process, had to say on the matter on April 2, 2009: "I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate." "As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system."
From one of Billman's favorite websites .... http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/byrd-dont-pass-health-or-energy-reform-via-reconciliation.php
Do not F with Robert Byrd!
By the same token, Sally, the GOP use of the filibuster in this Congress is similarly unprecedented. Quoth Bill Frist, former Republican Senate Majority Leader: "The use of the filibuster, compared to 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago — it's being used way too much," Frist said. "I think it's symbolic of the partisanship, the lack of comity here." From an analysis on Newser today: "The frequency of filibusters _ plus threats to use them _ are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Cloture is a Senate procedure to end debate so other business can be brought to the floor. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In this session of Congress, the 111th _ for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 _ the number already exceeds 40. The most the Democrats have ever use the filibuster was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000." One change begets another, don't you think? Besides, the bill itself wouldn't be passed through reconciliation; that bill has already obtained 60 Senate votes. Some fixes will go through reconciliation, that's all.
Sally: I think you make a good point with Sen. Byrd's comments. Reconciliation was not intended for health care reform or any non-budget matters. No doubt. But I think Julie Rovner's analysis shows that reconciliation, regardless of its original intention, is regularly used (by both parties) to alter health policy, among other legislation. Whether that's proper as a matter of process is another question.
Bad comparison Billman - you're comparing something that is being used properly but supposedly too much, to the use of a procedure in an improper way according to the author of that very procedure "...[reconciliation] was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and CERTAINLY NOT to restructure the entire health care system.” - Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, April 2, 2009. You F with Byrd at your own risk.
Here's what you're missing, Sally. The health care bill itself will not be passed through reconciliation; it was passed through the normal channels, obtained 60 votes, etc. Budgetary amendments to that bill can be made through reconciliation, properly. What Byrd was talking about last year was passing comprehensive reform through reconciliation; that is not this. The comprehensive reform horse has left that barn. It will be ultimately up to the Senate parliamentarian whether the fixes fall within the scope of the so-called Byrd Rule. From everything I've heard, they will. And once again, I humbly submit that none of this would have been necessary had Republicans acted like grown-ups during this entire process.
Billman for some reason I don't think Robert Byrd would approve of his reconciliation (current Obamaspeak "straight up or down vote") being used in this way either. Do you have any evidence that his is happy and on board with the Obama method? “…[reconciliation] was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and CERTAINLY NOT to restructure the entire health care system.” - Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, April 2, 2009.
Do you have any evidence that HE is happy and on board with the Obama method?
Okay, I'm jumping back in. Listen, I don't dispute that Sen. Byrd (whom I deeply respect - especially for his principled stand against rushing to war with Iraq. 'Do not F with Robert Byrd' right back at ya) - I don't dispute that he considers this to be an inappropriate use of "reconciliation," or even that it is a ridiculous political ploy. Do it anyway, that's what I'm saying. It's been done before, the filibuster's an equally ridiculous loophole of Democracy – and I think the bill should pass. I think it should pass because it's more just – just, I'm saying – than what we have now: because it will provide relief to people who need it and can't afford it through no fault of their own. That trumps the bickering, I think. Also, you mentioned 25% of people supporting it. I think it's weak statistic. "It" depends, doesn't it? "It" is hundreds of pages of arcana that only a week ago replaced thousands more. I think Americans give different answers to different questions. I also think most Americans think that it's not right a person should be denied coverage because a cell mis-divided or whatever. What we have in place now lacks humanity; this bill, to put it very bluntly, would mean that a young friend of mine wouldn't have to worry about whether she can afford treatment for her cancer or not. So let's pass it – "reconciliation," 9-ball tournament, whatever – I don't care. That's what I'm saying.
Hey Sally, Now that Byrd has signed off on using reconciliation, I'm sure that means you're OK with it, no? http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Byrd_defends_reconciliation_to_finish_health_reform.html
Fair enough - if Byrd is okay, then no problem with the tactic. However, the health care bill is still a total cluster that needs to be thrown in the trash. There are better ways to approach this problem than playing shell games with taxes & creating an alphabet soup of vast bureaucracies to oversee healthcare. I suspect republicans actually want the ugly bill to get passed so they can all use it as THE election issue of the fall. If it doesn't pass, then it's more challenging with the normal campaigning.
Sally, In the column I'm debuting next week in the dead tree edition, I'll explain why the bill needs to be passed no matter how big of an imperfect cluster it is.
Philadelphia can hardly wait. Is the column called The Douchebag Chronicles?
Comments (0)
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Topics:
- ActiVman
- adventures
- Arts
- Ask A Man-About-Town
- Award Tour
- Awards
- Bad Idea Factory
- Beer
- Below the Curve
- Bikes
- Booze
- Brian Hickey
- BRT
- Budget
- Budget Fuss
- Business
- Casinos
- City Council
- City Hall
- CouncilMANIC
- CP Abroad
- CP in the Community
- Criminal Justice System
- Day Tripper
- Death and Taxes
- Delaware River
- Design
- DROP
- Drugs
- Dubious Distinction
- Elections
- End of Days
- Environment
- Fashion
- Film Fest
- Financial Meltdown
- FrackTrack
- Free Library
- Gambling
- Gay Stuff
- Get Lit
- Greenstorming
- guns
- Hall Monitor
- Health
- Health Care
- Hello, Kitty
- Holidays
- Ice Cubes
- Iggles
- Immigration
- In Memoriam
- Labor
- Lawsuits
- Letters
- LGBTQ
- Maps
- Marcellus Shale
- Media
- MMA
- Mummers
- Music
- MUST READ
- Mysterious Mysteries
- Nation
- News
- Non Sequitur
- Opinion
- PA politics 2010
- Parking Wars
- Parks and Recreation
- People Send Us This Stuff
- Philadelphia Police
- Philadelphia Union
- Philaphemera
- Philly From Scratch
- philly madness
- Photos
- Poverty
- PPA
- President Obama
- Print Edition
- Prisons
- Protest
- Readers Write
- Real Estate
- Rock Bottom
- Schools
- Science
- Screwing Philly
- SEPTA
- snow
- So Lush
- Soccer
- Sporting Life
- Sports Complex
- State Politicians
- State Politics
- Street Art
- Strike
- Stuff We Like
- Taxes
- Taxi Drivers
- Tech Fetish
- television
- The Budget Crisis
- The City Paper
- The CLOG
- The Human Condition
- The Mayor
- The Phightin Phils
- The World
- Things that make you go hm
- Tinfoil Hats Off
- Under the Table
- Under the Tables
- Urban Development
- Urban Planning
- urban wildlife
- Video Poker
- We Call Shenanigans
- Weather
- Web Junk
- Weekend Omnibus
- White House
- What We've Found
- Women's Issues
- Flyered Up!
- How 'Bout That Weather?
- it's always sunny in philadelphia
- Stu!
- Shopping
- get out
- 10-track mind
- ArtsFlash
- Bloggity
- Bruce Being Bruce
- Colleges
- Comedy
- Gigantic Surprises
- Hello Canary
- Hello Puppy
- errata
- get lost
- Inside The Fishbowl
- Library Closings
- Local Support
- Movies
- Murder
- Night Moves
- Recycling
- radio
- Scientology
- Sex
- Sixers
- Skeeze Police
- State Politicians Screwing Philly
- That's a cool stencil!
- Theater
- Things We See
- This Week
- This Week in Oates
- University City
- WIN
- What we don't heart
- trailer!
- what we heart
- Feeling Guilty
- Askadelphia.
- Broke in Philly
- Contest
- Dance
- Dear Paper Doll
- Do A Good Thing
- Education
- Film Fest Schism
- G20-20 Vision
- Goodbye
- Gossip
- Great American Heroes
- PATCO
- Pearl Jam Week
- Puppy
- Stars of the Photostream
- sustainability
- Lower Merion Webcam-Gate
- The Cycle
- Equality Forum
- Bureaucrat of the Week
- Animals
- ElectionEar
- Photostream
