By which I mean, the Senate should pass health care reform by a simple majority, not a 60-vote supermajority. The Constitution is explicit about the requirement for laws: a majority of the House and Senate, and signature by the President; a two-thirds majority in the event of a Presidential veto.
The practice of filibustering important legislation is a deviation from this principle, has gotten badly out of hand in recent years, and should be abandoned. Wikipedia offers an instructive chart:
As a practical matter, unless the Senate reconciles on health care reform, the public option is dead and, perhaps, taking that as an indicator, substantive reform period. Insurance industry spokesperson Senator Joseph Lieberman today in the NYT:
You’ve got to take out the Medicare buy-in, you’ve got to forget about the public option.”
neilsagan says
neilsagan says
This is a good piece on the http://www.freeclinics.us program that’s trying to bring health care to those without insurance but just can’t keep up.
bean-in-the-burbs says
Is that correct, and do they have a bill that is sufficiently deficit-reducing to make that claim?
<
p>I am mixed about the filibuster – it certainly has spared us some crappy judges and other right-wing priorities when the Repugs were in the majority.
christopher says
The Byrd Rule prohibits non-budget items from being pushed through this way, but the public option is both controversial and budget-related. The non-budget items in this package also have the benefit of being less controversial so there’s a better chance of getting to 60.
<
p>I for one oppose the filibuster in principle even when the other side is in charge, though I would be open to amending the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote for at least Supreme Court justices, if not all federal judges.
usergoogol says
The thing is that the less controversial stuff is really important. The public option is just another health insurer, it would have no competitive advantage over other companies and in fact it would have a disadvantage if the for-profits tried to push riskier patients onto it. But the regulations forcing insurers to accent patients, and creating a health insurance exchange with subsidies like Massachusetts has are a very big deal that would expand health care insurance to a lot of people. The public plan wouldn’t expand health insurance, it would just make it a tiny bit cheaper.
<
p>Since we’d have to split the bill to get it through reconciliation, (and just trying the nuclear option of destroying the filibuster probably isn’t going to get majority support since most Senators like having the filibuster as an option, although I’d love to have it killed) I think we should try to pass the bill without the public option before we try to pass just the public option. And that means… continuing on the path Congress is following. Have a public plan if we can, but don’t freak out if it has to be removed to get the 60th vote. Passing the health care bill with the public plan taken out in no way prevents the public plan from being put back in later. The Health Insurance Exchanges won’t even be up and running until 2013 at the earliest.
christopher says
…though I don’t want any mandate to purchase except as tied to the public option.
kirth says
does not stop Senators having their beloved filibuster power in general, just on this bill. Passing a bill with an individual mandate, but no public option would be a disaster; costs would continue to climb out of control, and the insurance companies would get to profit off of millions more people.
<
p>It’s time to break the chokehold that the Flatulent Four have on healthcare reform. People are dying while they serve their corporate masters. If Reid can’t get them to do the right thing, he should proceed without them by using reconciliation.
usergoogol says
Yes, but reconciliation and the nuclear option are not the same thing. Reconciliation is a process which allows bills to be passed with 51 votes in the Senate, but it comes with all sorts of technicalities as to what’s allowed. The nuclear option is an elaborate parliamentary procedure which in theory would allow a simple majority to eradicate the filibuster without going through the ordinary procedure of amending Senate rules.
<
p>My point was to point out that if people wanted avoid the technicalities of the Byrd rule by “going nuclear,” that would run into problems of its own.
stomv says
I think if you go reconciliation, you force through the public option part, and then you do the other reforms. Why? Because if you do the reforms first, the GOP and conservadems will declare “job well done” and walk… and we’ll have no momentum or urgency on the public option.
<
p>Instead, you push the public option through, and once it passes you say: “ladies and gentlemen, let’s go ahead and finish up these reforms.” It allows those who were against the public option to save face by supporting the reforms (which happen afterward and thus happen most recently when all is said and done), and ensures that both parts get done.
usergoogol says
I think I see it the other way, though. The public option is at heart a small technocratic cost cutting measure: allow a government-run agency to provide health insurance at self-sustaining rates to make the individual health insurance market more efficient. Once you pass the big and expensive part of the bill, the public option looks more like the benign program it is, and it should be easier to get support. Bills get passed all the time, and only a few of them have “momentum or urgency” behind them.
<
p>Furthermore, the whole point of reconciliation is that you don’t need the votes of Republicans and conservative Democrats anymore. Who cares if they’re pissed off?
cater68 says
Thanks for linking to the NY Times story. This is the first I’ve heard of McCaskill wavering. I’ve been hearing the same 4-5 names repeated over and over as being crucial, but her’s is new….doesn’t inspire confidence.
jconway says
The irony about the McClaskill’s out there, that will vote against if it looks dead, is that the bill dying hurts the Dems chances over all. Lincoln is another one like that who has really forced herself into a political hole she won’t be able to dig herself out of. Nelson is the best we can get from Nebraska and is a principled opponent of abortion, but Lieberman has no political reasons or principled reasons to oppose this legislation, he basically supported and co-sponsored similar legislation in the past, and his identity has always been as a Democrat on economics and social issues with a neocon foreign policy. Now he is just a plan old neocon and I think Reid should strip him of his chairmanship if he refuses to vote for the public option. Really play hardball. Reid should push reconciliation to pass this. Lastly, if Reid bends over again and takes it, its time for a new majority leader.
michaelbate says
If Lieberman dos not vote for cloture, isn’t it time we took away his chairmanships and seniority? I know he is good on a few issues (like global warming and some civil liberties issues) but otherwise he is not a Democrat, nor was he elected as one.
<
p>Why are we continuing to allow him to keep his perks and chairmanships?
<
p>Michael Bate
johnd says
Why do we only like rules when they don’t apply to us? We had a standing rule in MA that a govenor could appoint a new temporary US Senator but our politicans changed the rule when they thought a Republican would be naming Kerry’s replacement. Now we have another standing rule on US Senate protocol which you want to change to get “your” bill through.
<
p>Don’t you think there have been “important” issues going on before that we really really had to pass and should “change the rules for”? This important “issue of the day” doesn’t mean we change the rules to jam it through. I would think you Dems would think longer term since we Republicans will be in power again shortly and could use this “new power” to change many of the same things you are talking about passing right now. Please don’t compare bringing a vote on a judge to this massive healthcare reform.
<
p>Don’t get all pissy just because you’re losing. I have a son who has the same reaction when he loses with rock-paper-scissors, he’ll promise to stand by the outcome… as long as he wins.
<
p>As Obama himself has said about other issues…
<
p>
<
p>We should pass a healthcare reform bill which addresses many of the issues we all agree on such as preexisting conditions…
<
p>”IF” things like the public option are truly needed then we should take our time to really think it out. I have stated before the dismal track record our government has when predicting costs and we are NOT in a good position to have a “Big Dig” type miscalculation where a $2 billion project ended up costing $24 Billion as a few TRILLION extra bucks will ruin the nation. Obama asked for and got lots and lots of time when determining his Afghanistan plan. Many here at BMG said they supported the President “taking time” and not “rushing” in with a plan. Well this Healthcare debate is a far bigger issue than Afghanistan and we should not be rushing the plan in order to make some random timeline (such as “end of year” or “State of the Union”).
stomv says
Regarding governor appointment: you’re right. The Dems were dopey when they pulled the ability away from Romney. That was a bad fix. They fixed the bad fix just recently. It makes sense to have an interim Senator so that MA has two representatives in the upper house. It also makes sense to have the people choose their Senator in a timely manner. The Democrats, motivated by partisanship perhaps, fixed their earlier mistake this summer.
<
p>The new law is a good one.
<
p>
<
p>Now, as for “enemy the perfect of the good”, cut the crap. All Republicans (and, to be clear, some ConservaDems) have been compromising like your paper-rock-scissor playing kid. That is, they’re happy to a compromise where you move your goalpost toward them, but then they won’t move their goalpost an inch. Then, once you’ve given up 90%, they demand that you move just a little to meet their demands, arguing that we need consensus.
<
p>With apologies to Rep. Frank, it’s a bit like compromising with a dining room table. The table is stubborn and won’t move an inch.
johnd says
But it didn’t. The deck was stacked from day one with only provisions the Democrats wanted so there is little for the Republicans to give up. Where is the interstate provision for insurance companies? Where is the tort reform? The bill started with everything the Democrats could possibly want and now we are whittling it away to a passable bill. We should scrap the whole thing and start over again.
kirth says
The “interstate provision” is a BJ for the insurance companies. It would allow them to apply the most-profitable, weakest-for-the-consumer set of rules from any state – like, say Nebraska. No, thanks.
<
p>Why no tort reform? 4 Reasons Why Tort Reform Won’t Be Part of Health Reform
<
p>And no, the bill did not start “with everything the Democrats could possibly want.” They compromised from the very beginning, hoping the Regressicans would at least meet them halfway. A hope that turned out to be futile.
johnd says
Maybe you can stop bullshitting for 1 minute and answer this honestly. With a keen view of the current path towards insolvency of Medicare and the many examples of the government completely blowing their estimates of costs on just about everything, how much do you think this healthcare plan will cost tax payers in 10-15 years (when it is an entitlement and beyond “cutting”)?
<
p>I think anyone believing your line about this being a cooperative bill from the start is either naive or stupid. This bill was stacked from day 1!
huh says
I have no counter-argument, so I’m just going to attack you.
stomv says
because the deck is stacked. There’s about 60 blue cards for every 40 red cards, in both the House and the Senate. That’s called democracy.
<
p>However, the Dems did not begin with an extreme liberal bill. They didn’t begin with single payer. They didn’t even begin with universal coverage. In an effort for bipartisanship, they started with a bill that they believed a handful of GOPers would go for, hoping that those GOPers would vote on the bill, not on the color of the party initiating the bill.
<
p>They were misguided, or simply misjudged. The GOP is excellent in the minority — it seems the only time they aren’t able to hold ranks is when some of the wimminfolk break ranks to support fairness and equality for women, such as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the so-called Stupak Amendment.
<
p>At some point, the Dems are going to have to simply take the bill that has the minimum number of votes to pass, and to hell with bipartisanship. Bipartisanship works when both sides are willing to work together to find a compromise that moves a positive agenda forward. The GOP is the party of NO, banking that stymieing the Dems will be enough to win some seats in 2010, regardless of the fact that they’re demonstrating no interest in solving any problem whatsoever.
<
p>
<
p>If the GOP were interested in getting things done, your argument would be a reasonable one. However, since the GOP is in the severe majority and not willing to move an inch toward compromise, the Dems best action is to tell the GOP to go back to the playground until they’re ready to behave like adults.
johnd says
And it is obvious why it’s stacked (60/40). So my remark was concerning the “give/take” activities of the bill and how Republicans aren’t “giving” and all I was trying to say is you can’t give when the bill started out with no give in it. Simple.
<
p>If you and I started a negotiation and I had all the marbles (100 marbles total) and you had none (zero), how would “give” up anything? The only give/take would be me giving and you taking. Of course I could then complain saying I gave you 2 marbles and stomv still won’t shake hands. So… I gave you 4 marbles and stomv still won’t shake hands. So… I finally offered giving you 5 marbles and stomv still won’t shake hands so obviously you are not even trying, you are the party of NO and I give up! Give me my fucking marbles back and we’re done.
<
p>Nancy Pelosi fucked up on day 1 by being so cocky and overconfident that she shutout the Republicans and created a bill that had no chance. I hope any downfall from this bill ends up in her partisan lap. I can’t wait till she is gone forever!
huh says
I realize you hate Nancy, but this statement defies credulity:
<
p>
stomv says
The bill is “stacked” in that it’s not 50/50. It certainly isn’t 100/0 though. Far from it. I wrote that since single payer wasn’t even presented, it can’t be considered even close to 100/0 — so your marble example has, well, lost it’s marbles.
<
p>Since it didn’t start 100/0, but rather something closer to 60/40, the GOP can most certainly give some marbles. Instead, there hasn’t been a single place where they’ve appeared to compromise at all — and this has been par for the course since January, where the Dems water down the bill to get a few votes, and don’t get any. It started with stimulus (which, I’d point out, was roughly 35% tax cuts, 35% infrastructure, 20% state aid, and 10% transfer payments) where the GOP got a big chunk of what they wanted and couldn’t muster a single vote in the House.
<
p>
<
p>Easy on the f-bombs please.
johnd says
Aside from single payer option I really don’t think there was much in the original bill from the Republicans. Maybe 100/0 was too much but I sincerely don’t think we had a 60/40 split on “our” clauses vs. “their clauses”. When you have a 60/40 split you don’t have to adopt ANY of our concerns. And single payer may have been left out becuase there were also Democrats who were against it.
<
p>I do wish Democrats would not take the stand that ANYONE against this healthcare reform bill is evil and should be punished. Why can’t politicans have legitimate concerns about legislation? Even strong Democrats who have supported the party and been good politicans are branded as “bad” because they are against the bill.
<
p>And this…
<
p>
<
p>No, this bill has been bad from the start. The Dems are continuing to put “lipstick on a pig” and giving in on Abortion funding, Healthcare for illegals and maybe the public option, but it still has issues. AND… I have seen very very little reform to address actual healthcare costs since the Dems are so busy trying to give healthcare away to everyone.
stomv says
(impossible to answer question)
<
p>If the GOP had decided to reform health care (something they absolutely failed to do when they controlled both House, Senate, and POTUS), what would be in it? Soup to nuts, not just the things which are big and controversial. I’m talking about things like drug re-importation (which suddenly the GOP is for!), computerized records, reducing needless defensive medicine, etc. Now, how much is in there now.
<
p>My contention is that the GOP would come up with much of the same things the Dems have — it’s just good legislation at that point. What percent of the bill is “that stuff”?
<
p>I think it’s a high percentage… which suggests that (i) the GOP dropped the ball by not making this happen five-ish years ago, and (ii) that they’re really just obstructing, because even though the bill has a lot of clearly good ideas, it also has ideas which are in fact contrary to basic conservative principles… and instead of compromising on some issues and getting a bill which does lots of good things, some so-so things, and a few not-so-great things form the GOP perspective, they’re content to sink the whole damn thing, throwing the (uninsured) baby out with the bathwater.
<
p>The GOP is the party of no, banking that it will result in better 2010 election returns, and to hell with the avoidable pain and suffering that happens in the mean time. It’s electorally savvy but it’s also deplorable.
johnd says
but I agree that many of the things in the plan they could agree on. I like being able to purchase meds from Canada. I like the removal of preexisting conditions. I like not being able to drop someone from insurance (or IN-surance as some people say). I would like computerized records and I want Doctors to be practicing preventive medicine and not just getting sick people well.
<
p>I think a sticking point is insuring people who don’t have insurance. The numbers are too high and I think that will kill our budget. We have to stop thinking we have ALL the money in the world. Many of the people without insurance can afford but they chose not to buy it. When you ask them to pay $12-14K a year for insurance I think they will opt for the $1,000 penalty and if too many of them refuse to but then we are screwed. It’s the costs of this thing that bug me.
<
p>Let me ponder your question a little more…
christopher says
…so many other countries DO afford to cover EVERYONE. I’m sorry, but the we can’t afford it excuse just doesn’t wash when you see how successful other countries have been. BTW, didn’t you give me a “zero” rating awhile back for suggesting that you didn’t see it as a priority to cover everyone on the grounds that I misrepresented your views? How does the comment above not say EXACTLY that, besides of course your all-to-common assumption that people CHOOSE to go without?
mizjones says
When did the Democrats even make a serious threat to use it, let alone actually use it? They rolled over for the very conservative Supreme Court judges in return for an option they agreed not to exercise.
<
p>When Republicans were in the majority, things were different. We never heard much talk about 60 votes then. Republicans threatened to remove the filibuster (remember the nuclear option?). They only backed off when they got Dems to agree not to use it.
<
p>You would think that since they don’t use it themselves, Dems would do away with it. Or, in the case of health care, they might use reconciliation. But then they would be under more pressure to pass programs that the public wants. It’s convenient that Ben and Joe act as the bad guys. Harry Reid stands by and watches. Other Dems get to throw up their hands and say “Oh well I tried.” I’m sure some really did, but all of them?
<
p>Why do Democrats cower regardless of their numbers? Oh wait, it’s often the campaign contribution numbers that really matter.