The healthcare debate has entered a crucial new phase, with the Senate now officially considering the plan put together by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Most observers expect the debate to be lengthy, running at least until Christmas and possibly into the new year.
While Senator Reid was able to garner sixty votes to proceed to his bill before Thanksgiving, it is much less clear that he has the votes locked up to pass it. He will need sixty senators at several more steps along the way to provide their assent, and some who voted with him to proceed to the legislation have publicly stated they would not now vote to stop debate unless significant revisions are made to the bill.
Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is among the holdouts, and he should be the least likely among them to be persuaded by appeals to party loyalty. In 2006, he was successfully challenged in a Democratic primary, and several prominent national Democrats sided with his opponent. He won reelection anyway, running as an independent. He continues to caucus with his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, but he owes them very little at this point. He has said that he will not vote to end debate on the Reid bill so long as it includes a new government-run insurance option so coveted by the left, even if states can opt out, as the Reid plan would allow.
Democratic senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are also said to be in various degrees of discomfort over the Reid plan. Of course, that might be related to the strong and intense opposition to the plan among voters in their states. Despite a year-long campaign to convince the public of the virtues of near-total governmental control of U.S. health care, most Americans are rightly dubious of the notion that the federal government can be given so much power over the organization and financing of American medical care without harming its quality.
And then there is the issue of abortion coverage. As matters stand, the Reid bill would allow taxpayer subsidies to flow to insurance plans covering elective abortions. If enacted, it would overturn the longstanding policy, upheld by Congresses under the control of both parties, that taxpayers should not be forced to finance abortion procedures they find morally abhorrent. House Democrats originally pushed provisions similar to those in the Reid bill, but pro-life Democrats balked. To secure enough votes for passage, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to allow a vote on an amendment offered by Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak. It passed convincingly, much like the Hyde amendment has many times over the years.
Still, it is not at all clear that a Stupak-like amendment could prevail in today’s very liberal Senate. In the aftermath of the 2008 Democratic landslide, there are fifty-eight Democratic senators, two independents, and a handful of pro-choice Republicans. There probably is not majority support for an amendment to add strong pro-life language to the health-care bill. But that doesn’t mean Stupak-like language is dead. Senator Ben Nelson considers himself to be pro-life, and, as of now, Senator Reid needs his vote. If he wanted to, Senator Nelson could probably force other Senate Democrats to accept something like the Stupak language in a revised Reid bill. But it’s not clear that’s what Senator Nelson wants at this point. In mid-November, in response to a question, he said he would not support the Reid bill unless it had abortion restrictions at least as strenuous as those in the Stupak amendment. Some days later, however, he said he misunderstood the earlier question, and gave a more ambiguous response. Pro-life Nebraskans might respond to this waffling by asking their senior senator if he isn’t going to stand up for life now, then when will he?
Of course, even if the Reid bill is amended to prevent funding of elective abortions, it is still seriously flawed. The Democratic plans would require Americans to enroll in government-approved insurance. If something like that passes, voters will very quickly turn the question around on politicians: What are they doing to make sure this requirement is affordable? The federal government will inevitably become the choke point for all of the important resource allocation decisions in the health sector. That’s a recipe for clumsy cost-control efforts which always erode quality, discourage innovation and new breakthroughs, and lead to queues and waiting lists.
The Senate was always going to be the highest hurdle for Democratic healthcare ambitions. Senator Reid may yet prevail, but it is not a foregone conclusion. Now is the time to pull out all of the stops to convince at least forty-one senators that the chamber known for its lengthy debates should continue debating this bill for a very long time.
James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Comments:
The Dems have admitted as much. Read John Cassidy's remarks in "Confessions of an Obamacare Backer" in the Wall Street Journal Nov 10, 2009:
"Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted." "
The point is to turn us into a socialist country.
If this were a legitimate reform bill, it wouldn't destroy the whole edifice--and propose to make average citizens criminals--for the sake of fixing 10%, would it?
No, it wouldn't. Use your brain.
As an advanced practice nurse, I can assure this comboxer that every single one of the "thousands of Americans who died last year" at least had a chance at life on this earth which is more, much more, than the MORE THAN ONE MILLION kids who were killed in the country before they were even born had.
In addition, because I work in an urban ER, I can also assure you that each one of your reputed "thousands" had access to emergent care. We never ever turn anyone away. So you'll have to peddle that somewhere else. I'm not buyin' it.
The proposed healthcare reforms completely undermine any principle of subsidiarity in favor of collective-statism, which is rule over every case without a conscience to appeal to in any single case. Eventually, the state (and it's leaders and appointed bureaucrats), as the only player in the industry without financial limits or legal liability for it's actions, completely takes over the industry and makes the decisions regarding who gets what care and who does not, regardless of affordability. The individual, whether patient in need of care or provider willing to provide it for a mutually acceptable cost, is defenseless in the face of the state, regardless of his own resources which are essentially controlled by others. Collectivism negates the individual and statism provides force to stand behind that negation.
I'll take a shot at a definition though it is not vetted by even the Wiktionary. A comboxer is someone who comments on a blog. Perhaps the etymology is "comments box writer" or someone who writes comments in the box provided, as I am currently doing.
This is a senate where the most liberal and radical health reform proposals all rely on large private, monopolistic corporations to provide insurance - a product so easy for the government to deliver that for large banks it doesnt' even write policies, it just swings into action when there's trouble, with hundreds of billions ready to roll in the blink of an eye. Meanwhile so-called conservatives are balking at little more than $100 billion / year for a system that will provably save lives.
But I digress. This senate is not liberal enough to pass even a 3% tax increase on those of us who basically have it all to begin with. This senate is not liberal enough to even consider trashing the 60 vote rule and going with simple majority rule, like any functioning democracy in a time of relative crisis would do. In fact, they are not even liberal enough to break up large corporate banks that have ALREADY proven to be disastrously dangerous to the economic system. A far cry from wanton nationalization of private enterprise. Even a crisis can't provoke minimal regulatory tightening.
And as to the "near-total government control of U.S. health-care", what in the world are you referring to? The regulation prohibiting the denial of coverage to the chronically ill? Or the requirement that insurance companies not dump you when it is determined - AFTER you've qualified and paid years of premiums - that you an expensive chronic condition? Because that's essentially all we've got without a public option. A gift basket of only the most common-sense regulations. In exchange for these onerous restrictions industry, the "very liberal" Senate bill has offered the insurance companies a large captive customer base, and has offered taxpayer money to pay their arbitrary premiums, just so insurance companies don't have to remain price competitive.
I really don't think this kind of canned libertarian, anti-democratic paranoid "every man for himself" rhetoric really does much to further the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. Over the years I had come to expect better from First Things.
A few points.
1. If the whole edifice is broken, then it should be torn down.
2. I assume when you say "access to emergent care" you mean emergency care. Emergency care for the dying and critically ill is not a solution. Preventative care is the key. Wouldn't it be nice if we could treat people when they first become sick or even help them to avoid becoming sick rather than waiting to treat them until they are on death's doorstep?
3. My point is that this isn't the time or place for debating abortion. I'm not sure why it was in the bill to begin with, but it is. Take it out, leave it in - I don't care. If you want to debate abortion, the supreme court is just across the street from the Capitol - take it over there. I'm worried about healthcare for the millions of people who are alive post-utero.
4. I know this isn't the only solution to healthcare reform. The original proposals have been whittled down to shadows of what they once were, but they are still SOMETHING. Doing nothing and hoping that things get better is not an option.
Comboxer out.
