Bad Day At Blair House
Never have I been so befuddled trying to write a story after viewing seven hours of the health care debate between President Obama and Republican and Democratic members of both the House and Senate.
Here it is a day later and I’m still stuck. A couple of impressions do stick in my brain.
To drop it, walk away and pretend the rising costs and grievous and capricious conduct of the private insurance carriers will go away is a criminal act of neglect by both parties in Congress.
I was more swayed by the argument put forth by Democrats that it must be tackled in a comprehensive reform package than the Republican version of cobbling it together one step at a time. I agree with Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa that there are too many integrated parts that need to blend in conjunction with each other to make it work.
The thought of doing nothing brought tears to my eyes each time a politician told a sob story from some poor wretch screwed by the current system. Those in the massive room at Blair House, the vice president’s mansion near the White House, are numbed after reading these stories from constituents. Even those who had family members victimized.
Visions of 43,000 Americans dieing each year because they can’t afford health coverage. We wouldn’t stand for that one minute if we lost 43,000 of our bravest on the battlefields every year.
The system is cruel. The poorest of Americans receive more than adequate medical care through MediCaid. But if one’s income is above Medicaid’s lowest poverty level and even if they work two jobs they can’t afford to pay for private health insurance which in many cases would amount to nearly half their monthly income.
One theme I heard during the meeting was that health care was a right by one faction and personal responsibility by the other. The latter is easy to say, as President Obama cryptically observed to a Congressman, when you’re earning $170,000 a year.
From all the chattering and posturing and talking points, the only gigantic gap between the Democrats and Republicans was providing coverage to about 30 million uninsured Americans.
Am I that dumb a deal couldn’t be struck on those issues where there were overlaps? A big hearty Sarah Palin you betcha. On the flip side, the two bills offered by the House and Senate, even if they were passed close to their current versions, would be so watered down they probably wouldn’t work anyway.
Yeah, I’m dumb. As if I didn’t know what a donut hole in Medicare’s drug coverage plan was. As if I didn’t know the procedural process in the Senate between a supermajority vote of 60 compared to reconciliation of simple majorities plus one. As if I believed Sen. John McCain that circumventing Senate rules by reconciliation is a defeat for democracy in America as we know it.
For all Americans who politicians think we are dumb, I say adios pendejos.
During that so-called summit, I wore a couple of hats.
My MC (media critic) baseball cap was chagrin for the U-Tube episode of the clash between President Obama and McCain. Obama bluntly reminded the former presidential opponent “the campaign is over.” A better observation by some was Obama playing CEO, calling all the politicians in the room by their first names while he was respectively addressed as “Mr. President.” My observation was Obama playing Monty Hall in “Let’s Make A Deal” and the Republicans were forever opening the wrong door whether it was No 1, 2 or 3.
Under my PS (political science) baseball cap, I gained a ton of respect for Sen. Tom Coburn, the Texas Republican and physician who pointed out one of every three dollars spent on Medicare is wasted. He suggested a series of corrective measures including undercover regulators to attack the system’s abuse. This is a sore point with me. If fraud and waste in the millions annually is common knowledge in Medicare for years, why hasn’t it been corrected? Why do we need a comprehensive health care bill to fix it?
One pet peeve gnawing at me during the meeting was the Democrats saying health reforms must be enacted now. Well, politically, the time is ripe. However, few if any reform measures if passed would not kick in for four years.
The final thought I had on the summit was a yearning for the good old days when five or less politicians would enter a smoke-filled room and remain until they negotiated a deal. Not transparent, but terribly effective.
As we head into March and April, the media will focus as a laser on all the political machinations Congress may take on either passing or killing a health reform bill. The Democrats are so desperate most will do anything so that Obama can sign which he would do.
We must then wait until the November midterms for the dumb public to vote up or down on the politicians who both tried and failed to get us out of this mess. The Republicans are licking their chops. Even if health care is a dead issue on their minds, jobs and unemployment will still be live and well.
In the end, it’s not good government. But the politics is boffo at the box office.
Share This
Same old talking points that didn't work in 2009 are being warmed over for 2010.
The choice is not, as the liberals keep insisting, to do nothing or to do what they demand. This is so simplistic as to be intellectually insulting.
Now I strongly support cost saving efforts, and Obama is claiming that he can whack 50 billion dollars/year out of the Medicare budget and not impact services. I say, give him 4 years of demonstrating that he can do what he says he can do, and when he comes back with 200 billion dollars in savings with no compromise in service or access to care, I'll be ready to listen. By the way, did he save 50 billion in 2009?
It seems the real choice is between being a bit skeptical about these claims and falling for them hook line and sinker. Any word on how the Big Pharma negotiations on Cspan are going?
Jerry,
Your frustration is certainly understandable and I agree with many of your points, but there's an important piece of the equation that you (and many others) are omitting: the states. While liberals are right to point out that cloture votes are not defined by the constitution, as some conservatives imply, but it is still true that the system is set up to discourage major changes to the status quo, and for the most part it was done so on purpose. The limited powers given to the federal government, and the checks and balances defined by the constitution, certainly would add up to an inept government… if that were all the government we had. But it is not–we have state governments to help those “poor wretches screwed by the current system”. And in fact some states have already done a lot to help in that regard.
Certainly there is a role for the federal government to do some things, and I won't be happy if nothing is done, but even if nothing happens at the federal government, all is not lost.
Old bumper sticker, as true now as it ever was: Republican Healthcare Plan – Don't get sick.
The healthcare reform summit was a non-starter. Obama had scored well in his first public encounter at the republican conference because they were unprepared and he wasn't. Well, this time they had the preperation advantage, being forewarned they were fore armed. Obama came looking somewhat less than a good community organizer. He really needs to get an experienced service oriented person like George Mitchell to serve as his Chief of Staff. His knee-jerk, flash in the pan, drama oriented approach is short on substance and long on ineffectiveness. I think the HCR legislation leaves a lot to be desired, but more than anything the country needs a leader and he should grab Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi by their necks throw them in a room and write a reasonable healthcare bill, and pass the damned thing. Screw the clotured concept, it may be rooted in tradition but it is not rooted in the Constitution. If the 50-50-1 rule to pass legislation is good enough for the founding fathers it should be good enough for this lot of hacks.
They need to pass some of the items that agreement can be reached on, working for the people instead of against each other. Trim it down get these passed ASAP and stop obstructing American citizens from benefitting from these while they try to push through areas of pure partisan contention. While they wrangle with these more devisive issues the American people could be benefitting and we could be getting feedback on how these passed items are working and how to improve them and take their lessons into the other areas.
Its the rational approach.
“If the 50-50-1 rule to pass legislation is good enough for the founding fathers it should be good enough for this lot of hacks.”
I'm nitpicking, but technically it would be more accurate to say the constitution does not mention any rules for how Senate debates should proceed, but obviously such rules are necessary. I'm given to understand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States) that before the cloture rule, senators could hold up debate unilaterally. That means essentially even 1 senator could prevent voting on a bill indefinitely. The cloture process was created to prevent that. Now, whether it should take 60 or 50 votes to invoke cloture is up for debate, but the constitution is no more in favor of a 50 vote cloture as it is in favor of a 60 vote cloture. It leaves these rules up to the Senate itself to construct, and most Senators, including many Democrats, support the rule.
(I would like to keep the 60-vote cloture rule, but force those who vote against it to actually hold the floor and speak. That would be more in line with the original intent of the cloture vote.)
There really is no shock here that nothing got done at this summit.
There should have been several chiropractors standing-by with all of the posturing going on!
Thanks for the wikipedia reference on cloture. In the past each side of the aisle could eventually work through reason to avoid stalemate, In the 60's it was used and the threat of it was used by the southern democratic senators to hold up or kill civil rights legislation. It was a protracted and drawn out fight until LBJ cobbled a pact with moderate republicans to break the logjam. To heck with that, our history is pocked marked because of that. Do it constitutionally, do it right. 50-50-1. Gitter done!
I'm not arguing that the cloture procedure has not been misused, I'm just saying that there isn't a constitutionality argument on either side of the issue. The rules of the senate are up to the senate. I doubt the founding fathers would approve either of a system where anyone could ask for a vote at any time and if they have the majority then the issue is done. That system could certainly be abused as well. That is what would be the case if there was no cloture rule, assuming you don't advocate for the system that preceded it, which is that anyone could delay a vote indefinitely. (A cloture rules that requires 50 votes, by the way, is pointless and might as well be done away with entirely as it would just be a redundant vote, so I assume doing away with cloture entirely is what you are advocating.)
Coburn's from Oklahoma, not Texas. You know why Texas doesn't float out into the Gulf of Mexico? Because Oklahoma sux.
Report Card: Dems get A for springing a rope-a-dope, WWE, Professor controls the students, and dictates the outcome (but made it look fair). Reps get F for walking into a trap with only one mantra- a clean piece of paper- not preparing better, both with ideas and presentation (old farts tell compassion stories, young turks debate O with facts and figures). Also, get a good coach to prepare to debate President ala UK parliament. He doesn't get a pass in a summit or debate. Reps, you were suckered.
Where in the world did that oft-repeated number come from, that 1/3 of Medicare is wasted. Is it possible that someone misheard 13% as 30%? Waste and fraud last year $47 billion. Medicare paid 454 billion. How is that 1/3?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ap/70…
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2009/04/t2009042…
1/3 of Medicare is wasted'
No Dems disputed that. Because it's true. And, it is because defensive medicine is the big cost that the Dems are ignoring. Why?
” I'm just saying that there isn't a constitutionality argument on either side of the issue. The rules of the senate are up to the senate. ” Now we're cooking!
” . . . so I assume doing away with cloture entirely is what you are advocating. ” What I am advocating is for the Senate and House to do their jobs! An idea is once a bill is introduced, assigned to committee and reported out majority leader identifies reasonable dates, debate (ammendments) and vote. Majority wins. 50/50/1.
So, instead of the cloture procedure, you'd prefer a system where the majority leader unilaterally decides when he's had enough of the debate (or whether there will be a debate at all). I'm sure the dates he picks and amendments he allows to be considered will always be reasonable and that he would never abuse that power.
“What I am advocating is for the Senate and House to do their jobs!”
Of course, but there has to be some rules to govern how the business is conducted. The cloture rule isn't perfect and can be abused, just like any other rule. Sometimes, those rules may get in the way of doing something that you think should be done. If they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a rule.
“So, instead of the cloture procedure, you'd prefer a system where the majority leader unilaterally decides when he's had enough of the debate (or whether there will be a debate at all). I'm sure the dates he picks and amendments he allows to be considered will always be reasonable and that he would never abuse that power.”
You're supplying an awful lot of apparitious answers. If you design your own facts, I guess you can shoot down the argument. What you are saying is silly. Of course a much better system can be arranged. Don't jump head long into an example which could be improvement. Stick to the issue. The senate is hamstrung. There's no constitutional or statutory restraint on improving it. The senate doesn't need to go through convulsive hyperaggression to deal squarely with issues. But it does by design. Checks and balances are in place between the 2 houses of congress, each must pass on legislation. Then there is another check on legislation, the President has to sign it. Then there is another check on legislation it has to pass judicial muster. Enough, enough with the checks and balances. Put the legislation in play. 50/50/1 that's sufficient. Gitter done.
Then let's trim the sails of the lobbyists.
The senate is hamstrung.
Baloney. Being unable to pass a piece of legislation that doesn't have enough political support (neither in his own party nor in the opposing party) doesn't mean the Senate has to be paralyzed. In fact this was demonstrated by the jobs bill passage, and could be demonstrated on any number of other pieces of legislation on which a consensus has been achieved (including potentially many healthcare reforms that really do have bipartisan support.)
The Charlie Rose show had a good episode about the entertainment event in DC, even if one of its guests, Ezra Klein, is just lightweight lib nail-clippings. (I suppose he was included for “diversity.”)
Frist was the best part of the show. I wish Frist were in charge of the GOP in the Senate right now (not only on this issue, health care reform, either).
Frist had the best idea other than one I had provided (both parties list what they want in a bill and rank them, then compare lists and bargain) — Frist (whose idea was even more realistic or better than mine) thought aloud that to put key Senate members (Dem, GOP) together in a room would produce something good. Frist was also frustrated with liberal insistence on bring silly — stuck in the past 30 years ago. Frist was also correct that this bill (and effort) is blatantly partisan Dem (as well as overreach — there has been no lesson properly learned from the past year of excess).
Those who want better analysis that left and far-left loss of what self-contol is feebly held by libs on this site might like Charlie Rose's episode. Bill Frist, Donna Shalala, Joe Califano.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10880
I have to agree with WagglebutII here. The filibuster rule in principle is extra-Constitutional and well beyond what the Framers intended, and the way it is currently being employed today would turn the them in their graves.
First of all, where the Framers intended super-majoritarian consent, they were very explicit in their instructions, like when if comes to Constitutional amendments. In fact, in Federalist 75, Hamilton says that any provision that requires more than a majority has a tendency to “embarrass” the work of government. Indeed, given their experience with the Article of Confederation, there is little wonder why he and the other Founders so disliked extra-majoritarian provisions.
Second, given the place of the vice-President as the President of the Senate, the filibuster rule effectively bypasses his Constitutional role as the deciding vote in a divided Senate. It is interesting that we have substituted a Constitutional remedy designed by the Framers for resolving Senatorial disputes for an arbitrary one that has no specific Constitutional grounding. Where are our strict constructionists now? Oh, yeah. They’re busy filibustering.
Third, while Madison did rail against the tyranny of the majority, it is notable that his solution was never to make voting in any of the branches anti-majoritarian. His solution was to mandate more majoritarian factions in the government and let the “ambitions” of these competing majority factions quell the advance of majoritarian tyranny. In fact, Madison was also concerned with “minority factions” but resolved them not to be an issue because majority voting would quell the ambition of minority factions. So much for that I guess. Again, another lesson learned from the AoC.
“the way it is currently being employed today would turn the them in their graves”
The thing to do is to review the history of the use of the filibuster. There is nothing wrong with having the Senate decide some things require a supermajority vote. Impatient whining by impatient Dems has no value here. But what does have value is the history of the filibuster's use, and if it has been different in recent times than in the past. How often was it used in earlier times, for what kinds of legislation? How now? If the GOP is using the filibuster against 80% of all legislation, then even though misusing the reconciliation device to force a majority vote is unethical, it's also understandable, because the Dems are desperate to pass legislation on health care and on other farther-left issues before this November (so farther-left voters won't be apathetic or worse, and not vote Democratic or at all this November). It's wrong to misuse the device (and it can be held up legally if it's not for budget items, possibly), but if the filibuster is being misused, the desperate Dems could likely decide it's worth it to shred the filibuster (making it “ping-pong,” simple majority votes only in the future, maybe with more VP tie-breakers, going back and forth between whichever party has the simple majority counting the VP if necessary), breaking through it on this health legislation and being willing to do the same the rest of this year to deter its misuse the rest of the year by the GOP.
Given the desperation over health care and the poor bill the Dems have (GOP opposition is likely), right now I'm betting it's over 50% that they'll use reconciliation, maybe as high at 60 per cent (or as high as public [mainstream] opposition to the Dem bill, which matters least apparently to the Dems).
Interested readers can find more below about the reconciliation process.
NOTE: “reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget”: Consider, if reconciliation is sought, what would legally have to be left out of legislation: non-budget items like prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, establishing health insurance exchanges, limits or bans on lifetime caps on insurance — in other words, the true insurance reform that is what really is needed, little or nothing else!
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_pro…
budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf