I’m not a theologian. But having been raised – even immersed, one might say – in the Christian tradition, I have a sense of what Christ would think about some of the issues that confront us, if he were walking among us on this, the day we traditionally celebrate as his birthday.
There are some things about our society that would surely please him. A world in which slavery no longer exists, the expected life span has been doubled, and infectious diseases have been brought under control would be a pleasant surprise.
The wars and insurrections that rage across the globe would not surprise him, as he lived in a time when Rome ruled the world by force of arms. He would, though, I think be confused by how many of those struggles seem to be predicated on religious pretentions and ethnic strife, rather than quests for territory and material gains.
The one territorial dispute he would understand – the struggle between Israel and Palestine – he would lament. As a Jew, he would empathize with the struggle of his people for a homeland of their own. But I think he would question why so many others were expelled from their homelands to make Israel possible, and why a way can’t be found for Jerusalem to be shared by the people of his ancestry, the followers that he would spawn, and the devotees of the prophet Mohammed, who would follow largely in his footsteps several centuries later.
Of the New World he would know nothing, of course, so the vibrant secular states of the Western Hemisphere would doubtlessly amaze him. I suspect he would applaud the multi-ethnic, racially mixed society that, on the surface, comprises the United States. He would probably be more impressed with Brazil, which has mixed races and ethnicities more thoroughly than we have, but he would give us points for effort and good intentions.
Digging beneath the surface a bit, he might be distressed at the degree of racial friction and ethnic strife that still exist in this country, as elsewhere. His ministry, as I read it, was all about seeing the worth of every human being, beyond their skin color, place of birth, or gender.
He would probably be appalled at the gap between the haves and the have-nots in our contemporary world – a gap between rich and poor much greater than what he knew. Wealth would not impress him; he didn’t have a lot of kind words for the rich. So year end bonuses in the millions of dollars for those who make money mainly by moving money around is something he could hardly understand
On the other hand, he was not inherently opposed to material acquisition. Indeed, he thought it better to invest money than to bury it. But, a carpenter by trade, he more likely would be identifying with the laboring class, and be most sympathetic to the poor and downtrodden.
Thus, on the one hand, he would probably be impressed with the social safety net that our society has created: social security and Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid and food stamps for the poor, a Job Corps and unemployment benefits for those out of work.
On the other hand, he would be puzzled by the people’s reluctance to pay for these programs. The notion that the only good tax is a lower tax, as though no taxes at all would be the best of all worlds, would have little resonance with a man who advocated rendering to Caesar (the government) what was Ceasar’s (needed by the government to pay for the role it plays), while reserving to our churches and ourselves what we can do in the spiritual and personal realms to help ourselves.
The master healer of his times, he would be really confused by the uproar over our health care system. As one who charged nothing for his services, the high cost of health care in our country would be appalling. To be fair, he didn’t have to pay for four years of medical school, hire nurses, or buy x-ray machines in order to cure leprosy, but the notion that health care is a profit-making enterprise would strike him as odd, at best.
What would surely be totally inscrutable to him is the fact that in order for us to be healed, we have to pay a third party who skims 30% of our premiums off the top to pay exorbitant executive salaries and stock dividends, then pays our personal healer with the 70% remaining (or not, if the third party can find the slightest excuse not to do so).
To make matters worse, our ability to invoke the services of this third party lasts only as long as our job does; out of work and we’re out of luck for getting healed, unless we can pay for it ourselves, which often we can’t because we’re out of work in the first place, or have the misfortune to have to stay in a hospital which charges us tremendous fees, in part to cover their extensive marketing campaign to get us to come to their place of business to undergo our pain and suffering.
He presumably would be aware of the attempts now underway in our Congress to fix this system. Doubtlessly he would be amused by the political gamesmanship, posturing, and hypocrisy that goes on in our legislative bodies, but this would be nothing new to a man who was used to dealing with Pharisees and other self-important persons.
Most incongruous to his ear would probably be our acrimonious debate over immigration. To be sure, national boundaries are more rigid and important than they were in his day, but nothing is more consistent in his ministry than the message that the stranger among us deserves to be housed and fed and clothed. Sure, the legal complexities of who can go where from what point of origin and do what are complications of the modern world, and simple admonitions to be charitable toward the stranger in our midst will not resolve this difficult conundrum. But surely, he would think, our search for a way to accommodate newcomers to our land, as our ancestors all once were, could be carried out with a little more common sense and sympathy.
On balance, I think Christ would feel a little disoriented today, and would hardly recognize the acts and admonitions carried out in his name.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
George had it right
If anyone needed an explanation of why George Washington thought political parties would be a disaster for the country, they need only look at the cloture vote in the Senate last night that brought debate on the health care reform bill to an impending halt on Christmas Eve night.
There are 40 Republicans in the U.S. Senate. There were 40 votes against ending the debate, which has been going on for nearly a year.
Can anyone truly believe that all 40 Republicans were voting on principle instead of party? Was there really not enough reform in a bill that extends health care coverage to over 30 million Americans for not a single Republican to support it?
Perhaps my Republican friends would turn the question around and ask me, was there truly not a single one of the 58 Democrats or two Independents who found enough flaws in the bill to vote against it?
My answer is – and I mean this – that , in this case at least, Democrats voted on principle and Republicans voted for no reason other than to achieve petty party advantage.
To be sure, the Republican criticism that the bill does too little to control costs is valid. So is the charge that a number of free-market measures to increase competition in the health insurance marketplace could have been included that weren’t. And as I’ve argued before, the Democrats’ unwillingness to entertain even cosmetic attempts at tort reform, delivers the Republicans a powerful debating point on a silver platter.
Some of the other Republican arguments amount to nothing but crocodile tears. Their outrage over the concessions made to Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) ignores the fact that the votes of those two senators were made decisive only because the Republicans voted en masse against everything, leaving a few Democrats and the prima donna Independent of all times, Joe Lieberman (I-CT), in position to wield an unconscionable amount of leverage.
Sure, the vote was along party lines in both parties. Technically, that can be explained by the fact that, on principle, Democrats tilt toward sympathizing with the needs of people who lack health care over the privileges of profit-making corporations, while Republicans are biased toward free-enterprise markets over the needs of individual consumers.
If there were ever a compelling need for government to protect the interest of vulnerable consumers, it would be the way that health care is rationed under our current system to only those who can afford it and are currently employed, or who belong to an entitlement group (Medicare, veterans, the military).
If there were ever a profit-bloated industry making money off the misery of others, it is the health insurance corporations, which spend about 30% of premium incomes on lavish executive salaries, stockholder dividends, and lobbying (none of which are required by Medicare, Tri-care, Medicaid, or any other government-run program). Their stock prices, by the way, reached a 52-week high on Friday.
So Democrats vote for the consumers, and Republicans vote for the well-endowed.
Readers of this column know that generally I avoid doctrinaire positions and confrontational language like this, but on this issue, those are my honest feelings and I don’t know a gentle way to put it.
The opponents of health care reform have no concept of gentility. In August, they bussed in thugs from all over the country to turn what should have been rational discourse at town hall meetings into shouting matches. Throughout the fall, they perpetuated myths of the most outlandish nature – from death panels, to pulling the plug on grandma, to comparisons between Obama and Hitler. In December, with more decorum but no less malevolence, they employed in the chambers of Congress every diversionary tactic and bald-faced lie they could think of to delay final passage. But they failed.
That the ultimate failure by opponents of health care reform to kill the bill came along party-line votes is no surprise, but is a great shame, for it only reflects the degree to which we have become polarized in this country. The Republican party has moved so far to the Right, that it has pushed those of us who would like to think of ourselves as reasonable and balanced progressives to the Left, just so the country could somehow hold on to the Center.
Wouldn’t it be a lot better if we all voted just for principle instead of party? We would still end up somewhere in the Center – more of our citizens would have health care, the insurance industry would still be in business (with executive bonuses perhaps at 1 or 2 million instead of 10 or 20 million), government would provide a safety net for the vulnerable but wouldn’t control the enterprise, and we could regain our faith in the ability of the country to act together for the collective good of all.
That’s all George Washington would have asked for.
There are 40 Republicans in the U.S. Senate. There were 40 votes against ending the debate, which has been going on for nearly a year.
Can anyone truly believe that all 40 Republicans were voting on principle instead of party? Was there really not enough reform in a bill that extends health care coverage to over 30 million Americans for not a single Republican to support it?
Perhaps my Republican friends would turn the question around and ask me, was there truly not a single one of the 58 Democrats or two Independents who found enough flaws in the bill to vote against it?
My answer is – and I mean this – that , in this case at least, Democrats voted on principle and Republicans voted for no reason other than to achieve petty party advantage.
To be sure, the Republican criticism that the bill does too little to control costs is valid. So is the charge that a number of free-market measures to increase competition in the health insurance marketplace could have been included that weren’t. And as I’ve argued before, the Democrats’ unwillingness to entertain even cosmetic attempts at tort reform, delivers the Republicans a powerful debating point on a silver platter.
Some of the other Republican arguments amount to nothing but crocodile tears. Their outrage over the concessions made to Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) ignores the fact that the votes of those two senators were made decisive only because the Republicans voted en masse against everything, leaving a few Democrats and the prima donna Independent of all times, Joe Lieberman (I-CT), in position to wield an unconscionable amount of leverage.
Sure, the vote was along party lines in both parties. Technically, that can be explained by the fact that, on principle, Democrats tilt toward sympathizing with the needs of people who lack health care over the privileges of profit-making corporations, while Republicans are biased toward free-enterprise markets over the needs of individual consumers.
If there were ever a compelling need for government to protect the interest of vulnerable consumers, it would be the way that health care is rationed under our current system to only those who can afford it and are currently employed, or who belong to an entitlement group (Medicare, veterans, the military).
If there were ever a profit-bloated industry making money off the misery of others, it is the health insurance corporations, which spend about 30% of premium incomes on lavish executive salaries, stockholder dividends, and lobbying (none of which are required by Medicare, Tri-care, Medicaid, or any other government-run program). Their stock prices, by the way, reached a 52-week high on Friday.
So Democrats vote for the consumers, and Republicans vote for the well-endowed.
Readers of this column know that generally I avoid doctrinaire positions and confrontational language like this, but on this issue, those are my honest feelings and I don’t know a gentle way to put it.
The opponents of health care reform have no concept of gentility. In August, they bussed in thugs from all over the country to turn what should have been rational discourse at town hall meetings into shouting matches. Throughout the fall, they perpetuated myths of the most outlandish nature – from death panels, to pulling the plug on grandma, to comparisons between Obama and Hitler. In December, with more decorum but no less malevolence, they employed in the chambers of Congress every diversionary tactic and bald-faced lie they could think of to delay final passage. But they failed.
That the ultimate failure by opponents of health care reform to kill the bill came along party-line votes is no surprise, but is a great shame, for it only reflects the degree to which we have become polarized in this country. The Republican party has moved so far to the Right, that it has pushed those of us who would like to think of ourselves as reasonable and balanced progressives to the Left, just so the country could somehow hold on to the Center.
Wouldn’t it be a lot better if we all voted just for principle instead of party? We would still end up somewhere in the Center – more of our citizens would have health care, the insurance industry would still be in business (with executive bonuses perhaps at 1 or 2 million instead of 10 or 20 million), government would provide a safety net for the vulnerable but wouldn’t control the enterprise, and we could regain our faith in the ability of the country to act together for the collective good of all.
That’s all George Washington would have asked for.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Crime and Punishment
I have a friend, we’ll call him Rick, who made a terrible mistake when he was 24.
He solicited a prostitute, had consensual sex with her, then got in a fight with her over the price and beat her up. She then accused him of rape.
He deserved to go to jail for beating her up. He knew that. So when his court-appointed lawyer talked him into copping a plea, Rick agreed. He thought he was pleading guilty to battery, but in fact he pleaded guilty to rape, and was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
After 20 years and a master’s degree earned behind bars, he was paroled. Being labeled a sex offender made it nearly impossible to get a job, but he finally found work as a tutor at a half-way house, met a wonderful woman with young sons, and married her.
They joined our church. Rick got involved in the community, and was a model citizen. He confessed his criminal past in public one morning, asked for forgiveness which was granted, and tried to move on. But the frustration of so many doors closed to a labeled sex offender grew.
Depressed one night over the wasted years of his life, he struck up a conversation with a woman at a bar who turned out to be an undercover cop. She accused him of soliciting. He claimed he only wanted to talk. It didn’t matter – he was back in prison without a trial or hearing. Parole officers can make that happen.
He paid a lawyer the little money he had, but the lawyer did nothing. Heroic efforts by two other women who had become family friends finally got him out after two years.
One day parole officers came to his wife and told her if she didn’t wave her right to a search warrant at any time, her husband would go back to prison, so she signed.
A few weeks later when Rick was at work, they showed up unannounced, ransacked the house, and found a pornographic video in the closet of one of his stepsons that Rick had no idea existed.
He was returned to prison without a trial or hearing, where he sits today – parole officers can do that. Rick is an educated man trying desperately to do good, convicted of rape though not a rapist, labeled a sex offender but posing no threat to anyone.
Sexual assault is a serious crime, and society must be protected, but there has to be a better way to distinguish the truly dangerous from the wrongly accused. And that decision shouldn’t be left to parole officers, or anyone else who behaves like a bully just because they have the power to do so.
He solicited a prostitute, had consensual sex with her, then got in a fight with her over the price and beat her up. She then accused him of rape.
He deserved to go to jail for beating her up. He knew that. So when his court-appointed lawyer talked him into copping a plea, Rick agreed. He thought he was pleading guilty to battery, but in fact he pleaded guilty to rape, and was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
After 20 years and a master’s degree earned behind bars, he was paroled. Being labeled a sex offender made it nearly impossible to get a job, but he finally found work as a tutor at a half-way house, met a wonderful woman with young sons, and married her.
They joined our church. Rick got involved in the community, and was a model citizen. He confessed his criminal past in public one morning, asked for forgiveness which was granted, and tried to move on. But the frustration of so many doors closed to a labeled sex offender grew.
Depressed one night over the wasted years of his life, he struck up a conversation with a woman at a bar who turned out to be an undercover cop. She accused him of soliciting. He claimed he only wanted to talk. It didn’t matter – he was back in prison without a trial or hearing. Parole officers can make that happen.
He paid a lawyer the little money he had, but the lawyer did nothing. Heroic efforts by two other women who had become family friends finally got him out after two years.
One day parole officers came to his wife and told her if she didn’t wave her right to a search warrant at any time, her husband would go back to prison, so she signed.
A few weeks later when Rick was at work, they showed up unannounced, ransacked the house, and found a pornographic video in the closet of one of his stepsons that Rick had no idea existed.
He was returned to prison without a trial or hearing, where he sits today – parole officers can do that. Rick is an educated man trying desperately to do good, convicted of rape though not a rapist, labeled a sex offender but posing no threat to anyone.
Sexual assault is a serious crime, and society must be protected, but there has to be a better way to distinguish the truly dangerous from the wrongly accused. And that decision shouldn’t be left to parole officers, or anyone else who behaves like a bully just because they have the power to do so.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Time to kill the bill? Not just yet.
As a perennial optimist to what my friends and family sometimes regard as an annoying degree, I am growing pessimistic about the chances that a bill on health care reform worth signing will survive the legislative slaughterhouse in the Senate.
The AFL-CIO and other major labor backers of the legislation are now on the verge of calling for killing the pending legislation. Most significant of all, Howard Dean – former Democratic Party Chair, physician, and untiring advocate for health care reform, has said it’s time to give up this round, and start over.
I have about reached the tipping point myself in thinking that what’s left of the bill in the Senate does more harm than good. But not quite – in part because we’re not yet to the final round.
For the time being, I’m taking the other tack. Pass anything out of the Senate that can be passed. Make Joe Lieberman king for life, Ben Nelson the czar of reproductive rights, and Olympia Snowe the queen of “catch me if you can.” I don’t care. Just get it out of the Senate, to the final round.
Then the House and Senate will have to blend the flawed but acceptable version from the House with whatever monstrosity comes out of the Senate. It isn’t inconceivable that something worth passing would be crafted by the House and Senate conferees. If it doesn’t, kill the bill then. If it does, let the Republicans and Lieberman and Nelson kill it. That way, the blood will clearly and finally be on their hands.
The AFL-CIO and other major labor backers of the legislation are now on the verge of calling for killing the pending legislation. Most significant of all, Howard Dean – former Democratic Party Chair, physician, and untiring advocate for health care reform, has said it’s time to give up this round, and start over.
I have about reached the tipping point myself in thinking that what’s left of the bill in the Senate does more harm than good. But not quite – in part because we’re not yet to the final round.
For the time being, I’m taking the other tack. Pass anything out of the Senate that can be passed. Make Joe Lieberman king for life, Ben Nelson the czar of reproductive rights, and Olympia Snowe the queen of “catch me if you can.” I don’t care. Just get it out of the Senate, to the final round.
Then the House and Senate will have to blend the flawed but acceptable version from the House with whatever monstrosity comes out of the Senate. It isn’t inconceivable that something worth passing would be crafted by the House and Senate conferees. If it doesn’t, kill the bill then. If it does, let the Republicans and Lieberman and Nelson kill it. That way, the blood will clearly and finally be on their hands.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What I’d like to see; but what we will see
Health care reform legislation is moving too fast for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), isn’t punitive enough for women who wish to exercise their legal right to reproductive choice for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), and isn’t what Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) says he wants this week.
Take those three senators out of the equation and truly meaningful health care reform would pass out of the Senate in a heartbeat. Even with them sticking to their vows of obstruction, it could still pass once the majority breaks a filibuster that the minority, with the help of the three recalcitrants, seems intent on mounting.
So this is what I would like to see happen.
I would like for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to call their bluff and move to invoke cloture (cut off debate). When cloture fails, I would like for him to let the 40 Republicans and 2 other obstructionists take the floor and start talking.
I would like for Leader Reid and the rest of the Democrats to have the courage to stand on the floor as long as the debate proceeds.
I would like to see Sen. Snowe talk right into the night on Christmas eve, explaining why the attempt to pass a national health care bill first proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt is moving too fast.
I would like to see Sen. Nelson hold forth on Christmas morning about why a woman should be denied the right to use her own money to terminate a pregnancy after she has reached such a difficult decision in consultation with her family, physician, and religious advisor.
And I would like to see Sen. Lieberman spend all Christmas afternoon explaining why he used to be for universal health care but is against it now, why 10 days ago he was open to a Medicare buy-in provision but 5 days ago had decided the country couldn’t afford it even before the CBO makes such a determination, and just in general how gratifying he finds the experience of being THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN THE WORLD to be.
Then, through Christmas night and the days to follow, I would like to see at least any one of the senators favoring passage to stay on the Senate floor at all times, so that when finally the Republicans and their allies have enraged the country enough by bringing the government to a standstill that they have to relent, a proponent of passage will be on the floor to move for a vote.
That is not what we will see, however.
As of this writing, it looks like what we will see is a senate bill devoid of any public option and devoid of any buy-in. It will probably pass out of the Senate with 60 votes on the 23rd or 24th of December. Every member of Congress will then go home until after New Year’s. In early January, conferees between the House and Senate will meet. The conferees may try to insert an anemic public option of some sort, but that will probably fail. A bill without the public option will pass in the House by a two or three vote margin and in the Senate with 53 or 54 votes total. The President will sign it and claim a victory.
Former Governor and Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean is one of my heroes. His steadfast leadership on health care reform has been an inspiration. Thus it is with great reluctance that I find myself in disagreement with him over whether it’s time to kill this bill. I think it is not.
The bill the President will finally sign will be an ugly piece of legislation – far short of what the majority of us want, and totally inadequate for what we need as a country. But it will have some reforms that are more that trivial.
This legislation is no longer about health care; it’s only about health insurance reform, and a weak version at that. But it is reform, and it will help. And most importantly, it represents something well short of the victory that the malignant health insurance industry had hoped for. If for no other reason, that is reason enough to pass it.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Breaking news more good than bad
Now we know what was going on behind closed doors. A “gang of ten” senators (5 liberals, 5 conservatives) were taking the public option out of the Senate’s health care reform bill, in an effort to gain enough support to overcome a Republican-led filibuster.
The news is not as bad as it might seem, though, because the compromise alternative appears to include lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to 55, and expanding the eligibility for Medicaid (though preliminary news accounts differ on whether the latter survived the conference). For the two affected groups – seniors between 55 and 65, and everyone under 150% of the poverty level – this would bring a single-payer, government-funded program into the mix.
Those of us who have preferred a single-payer system all along have reason to be heartened. This is actually much better -- again, for the affected groups -- than the anemic public option plans in either the Senate or House version of the health care reform bill. And it has the further advantage of building on an existing, successful government program rather than putting a new one in place.
Other good news coming from the compromise deliberations includes the following potential provisions: (1) allowing health insurers to sell policies nationally, thereby challenging monopolies in local markets; (2) providing access to a health insurance exchange through the Office of Personnel Management which provides lawmakers with their menu of health insurance choices; and (3) requiring insurance companies to spend 90% of their income on health benefits, bringing their administrative costs almost in line with Medicare.
Preliminary news accounts are also saying that the Medicare expansion provision will kick in as early as next year, rather than four years down the road under the current version of the public option.
The bad news – and it is far from insignificant – lies in the fact that everyone younger than 55 who is not eligible for Medicaid has been left out. With no public option available to them, and the mandate that they must purchase insurance, they are poised to be prime victims of the predatory private health insurance companies.
Hope for the younger middle class lies in two directions. First, if insurers really do come up with nationwide, non-profit policies for those otherwise unable to obtain insurance through their employers, affordable insurance in the private market place may be available to them. Secondly, if downward expansion of Medicare eligibility to age 55 works well (and it should, because these younger seniors should pay in more and take out less), the political momentum for extending Medicare for all should be increased.
All of this information is very tentative. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is appropriately withholding details until the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has had time to assess the cost. Thus, we aren’t sure of what the provisions actually are, when they would take effect, or what, if anything, would trigger them. So stay tuned to the RioGrandeRift – your best source for informed news and commentary on the progress toward health care reform.
The news is not as bad as it might seem, though, because the compromise alternative appears to include lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to 55, and expanding the eligibility for Medicaid (though preliminary news accounts differ on whether the latter survived the conference). For the two affected groups – seniors between 55 and 65, and everyone under 150% of the poverty level – this would bring a single-payer, government-funded program into the mix.
Those of us who have preferred a single-payer system all along have reason to be heartened. This is actually much better -- again, for the affected groups -- than the anemic public option plans in either the Senate or House version of the health care reform bill. And it has the further advantage of building on an existing, successful government program rather than putting a new one in place.
Other good news coming from the compromise deliberations includes the following potential provisions: (1) allowing health insurers to sell policies nationally, thereby challenging monopolies in local markets; (2) providing access to a health insurance exchange through the Office of Personnel Management which provides lawmakers with their menu of health insurance choices; and (3) requiring insurance companies to spend 90% of their income on health benefits, bringing their administrative costs almost in line with Medicare.
Preliminary news accounts are also saying that the Medicare expansion provision will kick in as early as next year, rather than four years down the road under the current version of the public option.
The bad news – and it is far from insignificant – lies in the fact that everyone younger than 55 who is not eligible for Medicaid has been left out. With no public option available to them, and the mandate that they must purchase insurance, they are poised to be prime victims of the predatory private health insurance companies.
Hope for the younger middle class lies in two directions. First, if insurers really do come up with nationwide, non-profit policies for those otherwise unable to obtain insurance through their employers, affordable insurance in the private market place may be available to them. Secondly, if downward expansion of Medicare eligibility to age 55 works well (and it should, because these younger seniors should pay in more and take out less), the political momentum for extending Medicare for all should be increased.
All of this information is very tentative. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is appropriately withholding details until the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has had time to assess the cost. Thus, we aren’t sure of what the provisions actually are, when they would take effect, or what, if anything, would trigger them. So stay tuned to the RioGrandeRift – your best source for informed news and commentary on the progress toward health care reform.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Behind Closed Doors
“No one knows what goes on behind closed doors.” So wrote Kenny O’Dell in the classic country and western song made famous by Charlie Rich in 1973. It describes quite nicely what’s going on in the Senate right now.
For reasons unclear to many of us -- but probably comprising a mixture of honest conviction, limelight addiction, and fear of an agitated constituency whipped up by President’s Obama’s critics desperate to make him look bad at any cost -- a number of Democratic and all Republican members of the United States Senate are determined to stonewall the public option in the senate’s pending health care reform bill.
Behind closed doors, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is trying to cobble together some kind of compromise language that will get the 60 votes needed to avoid death by filibuster. This is not a transparent process. It can’t be. The stakes are too high, the egos too prickly, the situation too fluid.
It’s important to keep the focus on the end game. The semi-end game is to get a bill voted out of the Senate, that can go to conference with the House, so that a single bill can then go back to each house of congress for a final vote.
The House bill has a respectable (if far from perfect) public option already. The Senate bill needs to have a whisper, a wink, or a nod toward a public option as well, to ensure that some form of public option makes it into the final bill, which will not be subject to further amendment. My guess is that the whisper, wink, or nod will be one of the following:
1. Public option by trigger. That is, there will be no public option up front, but one would be invoked if the private health insurance industry fails to deliver health insurance at an affordable price for all. This could win over Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and possibly her colleague, Susan Collins (R-ME). It might not be all that bad, either, because the private health insurance industry is almost certain to fail, and the public option will be triggered automatically. The downside to this option is the delay, but the short term pain of no public option will probably be followed by the certainty of getting it eventually.
2. Public option by opt-out or opt-in. This would mean that each state would decide to participate or not. I haven’t heard any Democrat or Independent say they absolutely will not support a bill that gives states the option to not participate in the public option. The downside here is that some states might still leave their citizens without health insurance. In Texas, that would mean at least 1 out of every 4 people. On the other hand, it brings the public option to a more local level, where leverage could be more effective, and where alternatives, like public clinics, can be more creative.
3. Semi-private co-operatives, which would look and feel like public options, but would not be funded by the government. The downside to these is that every economist and disinterested analyst who has looked at this alternative feels that it is highly likely to fail, for lack of a critical mass. Again, this might not be so bad, if it is coupled to an alternative, like a trigger, that invokes a public option eventually.
Never underestimate the creativity of the legislative process. I said months ago that what is going to transpire through the fall and early winter is not going to be pretty. But as long as the debate is still joined, momentum for reform is being maintained. What’s going on behind closed doors is the relentless effort to keep that momentum going.
For reasons unclear to many of us -- but probably comprising a mixture of honest conviction, limelight addiction, and fear of an agitated constituency whipped up by President’s Obama’s critics desperate to make him look bad at any cost -- a number of Democratic and all Republican members of the United States Senate are determined to stonewall the public option in the senate’s pending health care reform bill.
Behind closed doors, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is trying to cobble together some kind of compromise language that will get the 60 votes needed to avoid death by filibuster. This is not a transparent process. It can’t be. The stakes are too high, the egos too prickly, the situation too fluid.
It’s important to keep the focus on the end game. The semi-end game is to get a bill voted out of the Senate, that can go to conference with the House, so that a single bill can then go back to each house of congress for a final vote.
The House bill has a respectable (if far from perfect) public option already. The Senate bill needs to have a whisper, a wink, or a nod toward a public option as well, to ensure that some form of public option makes it into the final bill, which will not be subject to further amendment. My guess is that the whisper, wink, or nod will be one of the following:
1. Public option by trigger. That is, there will be no public option up front, but one would be invoked if the private health insurance industry fails to deliver health insurance at an affordable price for all. This could win over Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and possibly her colleague, Susan Collins (R-ME). It might not be all that bad, either, because the private health insurance industry is almost certain to fail, and the public option will be triggered automatically. The downside to this option is the delay, but the short term pain of no public option will probably be followed by the certainty of getting it eventually.
2. Public option by opt-out or opt-in. This would mean that each state would decide to participate or not. I haven’t heard any Democrat or Independent say they absolutely will not support a bill that gives states the option to not participate in the public option. The downside here is that some states might still leave their citizens without health insurance. In Texas, that would mean at least 1 out of every 4 people. On the other hand, it brings the public option to a more local level, where leverage could be more effective, and where alternatives, like public clinics, can be more creative.
3. Semi-private co-operatives, which would look and feel like public options, but would not be funded by the government. The downside to these is that every economist and disinterested analyst who has looked at this alternative feels that it is highly likely to fail, for lack of a critical mass. Again, this might not be so bad, if it is coupled to an alternative, like a trigger, that invokes a public option eventually.
Never underestimate the creativity of the legislative process. I said months ago that what is going to transpire through the fall and early winter is not going to be pretty. But as long as the debate is still joined, momentum for reform is being maintained. What’s going on behind closed doors is the relentless effort to keep that momentum going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
