Do You Want a Straight Majority Vote on Health Care?
It comes down to this: Do you think health care reform should get a straight majority vote in Congress? Or should a few Senators be allowed to single-handedly block reform?
As we speak, the Senate is working on President Obama's budget. At stake is something called "budget reconciliation," a Senate rule that forces Senators to take a simple majority vote on the budget. In other words, the budget cannot be filibustered.
The bill the House Budget Committee passed yesterday includes "reconciliation instructions" for health care, which means health care reform, according to the relevant committee in the House, should be passed with the budget and by budget rules. The question is, will the Senate committees do the same? Or will we repeat the mistake Bill Clinton called his worst one?
It goes without saying that having a majority vote on health care, as opposed to needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, makes passing health care reform easier. The argument that this is "not bipartisan" doesn't hold much water. George Bush passed his tax cuts this way. And as Mike Lux points out in The Progressive Revolution, not a single Republican in the House voted for Social Security under FDR.
But there is principle to this argument, too. The American people voted for Barack Obama - largely because of his health care plan - and we only needed a majority vote to elect him. Shouldn't the Senate only need a majority vote to pass this major piece of his agenda and bring to America the change we need?
We missed this opportunity to do health care reform last time around:
In 1994, the Clintons wanted to use reconciliation to pass health care, but Robert Byrd, the Senate's hallowed parliamentarian, said no. Clinton has said that his worst mistake in health care was not fully appreciating the blow his strategy had been dealt.
Let's not make the same mistake again.
If you think a couple Senators should be able to block reform, if you think health care deserves a straight majority vote, then click here to call your Members of Congress. Tell them you want to give health care reform a majority vote.
(also posted at the NOW! blog)
I'm proud to work for Health Care for America Now.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, a majority vote shoud suffice in the senate for HC reform. Many of the new senators rode on Obama coat tails to get into office. Today I heard my new senator Kay Hagen saying that while she supports Obama on all of his programs, she thinks that the cost is too high. That she is part of the Blue Dogs because she is fiscal responsible. Image that - I worked the polls (in the parking lot) here in NC telling everyone to vote straight democratic ticket. Senator Hagen got in because voters were told that Obama needed as many democrats as possible to help him in congress. We got rid of Ms Dole. And we got this!!
It's time for democrats to push everything through w as much finese (force) as possible. They should not wait. Go for majority vote just like the repubs did when they controlled congress. There will not be another chance for many, many years. The repubs are working while we are sleeping scheming to get back in power. They will, because they have the bully tactics and MSM to help them do so.
Why not put this to the vote of the American People, then Congress would see how fast Universal Heath Care would be enacted. I don't trust anyone in Congress to speak for me."
Well said. This is a typical example of the shortcomings of our system of government. Congress is not about to allow the American people to decide much of anything. Our Presidental elections are flawed with the so called "electoral college" and very few things in this country are actually decided by the people. And yes, given the opportunity to implement some form of universal health care would be unanimously approved by the American people if given the chance. problem is, congress is on the "take"" from the greedy crooks who are getting filthy rich off the present system such as the parmaceutical companies, the AMA, the Health Insurance Giants and the national hospital assn. Just follow the money trail if you want to know why intelligent decisions are not being made. It's just about reached the point now however, where the American healh care industry have priced themselves out of the market and when that happens on a wider scale, affecting more and more peoplel, then something will get done.Sad and disgraceful!
Why not put this to the vote of the American People, then Congress would see how fast Universal Heath Care would be enacted. I don't trust anyone in Congress to speak for me.
"I don't trust anyone in Congress to speak for me."
Bingo.
Not a bad idea. Of course, such a resolution would have to be voted on by people within the states themselves. There is a campaign going on in dismantling the electoral college. Their strategy is quite savvy in that they are getting the states one by one to automatically shift all of their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote -- so as to render the power of the electoral college null.
With health care, I think each state can individually set up state plans where they employ a commissioner and a team of eight administrators (that actually includes doctors who have been in the field) to set the rate of services within the state given the cost of living and the cost of malpractice insurance that each doctor has to purchase. The health care could be backed by taxpayers and companies alike (at a lower discount than the current insurance companies) while bonds can be purchased to invest in preventative care through diet and exercise.
The right answer is: hc reform should be subject to the same legislating rules as everything else.
I want a majority vote as that is how The Constitution is SUPPOSED to work. Nothing gets done in this country, because of the moronic Senate rules.
I agree. A majority vote such as the Republicans used all the time during the BUsh years should do it.
Oh, ps (see my comment below). My family lives in the UK. My brother has schizophrenia. He is totally taken care of by the state:
free drugs
free travel pass (for unlimited travel around London)
free accommodation (in a quite nice house with about three other people with mental illnesses and staff)
nurse onsite
key worker, social worker, psychiatrist, psychologist, therapy--free
My ex-colleague from NYU whose son has schizophrenia published about 500 books to make royalties to pay for his son's treatment.
National Health Service of the UK: YOU ROCK
HINT: It's not "free"...s
I think most of us know that it isn't free Donk, but I think that the majority of us think that it is a right. And we are sad that this is the only industrialized country where people often face bankruptcy or no treatment when illness strikes.
Don't give us the same old argument that the rich pay most of the taxes. They should since they have the majority of the resources.
If we had national health care, the USA would be pretty much perfect as far as I'm concerned. Okay there are a lot of problems but so many would dissolve once this got enacted. As it is, despite preferring to live here, I always get a nostalgic pang when I return to my birth country (UK) and see my daughter getting top treatment and free drugs, anywhere, any time of day, with no forms to fill in or sign, nothing--just treatment, fast.
Republicans immorally used the budget reconciliation process to give the superwealthy a tax cut they didn't need in the middle of a war.
The Democrats should use the budget reconciliation process guilt free to do something for the American people.
So true Dan.
I do not have confidence that the politicians in Washington can put together an effective national health plan. In order to create an excellent plan i suggest that we convene a dozen or so citizen deliberative councils in different regions of the country. Give these councils access to experts with different points of view, position papers on various plans that work in other parts of the world (with pros and cons for each plan), and let the citizen groups recommend a universal health care plan for our country. I believe in the creativity, objectivity, and brilliance of our citizenry. And think it is time for more deliberative citizen engagement. Especially right now - as we are seeing that our current systems of governance and capitalism do not seem to have the "good of the whole" as the most important criterion for decisions that are made.
No. That would kill health care reform through committee.
The political reality is that there is a once in a lifetime chance for health care reform and it has to be done this year.
Conservative Republicans used budget reconciliation to give wealthy people a tax cut they didn't need in the middle of a war.
Democrats should use the budget reconcilation process guilt free to do something for the American people.
YES!!!!!!!! Of course we want the new health care ploan nay way we can get it. Skyrocketing health care costs now accou nt for a huge number of mortgage defaults and loss of all assets of some families, plus untold worry about what any major illness could do to other families.
I am writing a pretty comprehensive college paper on the issue right now, and frankly some of the facts I drudge up, and the satisfaction in care in countries with a universal system is astounding
the health lobby (doctors, insurance and drug companies) have clearly pulled the wool over the american peoples eyes in their demonization of a single payer system!
and, as more americans find themselves uninsured as employers reduce their labor burdens or lose they lose their jobs, a universal system becomes more and more appealing!
perhaps one day we will enter the modern era! I am not holding my breath, money buys everything in this country and the health lobby has a hell of a lot more of it than a poor unisured american!
Very true!!!!. I lived in British Columbia, Canada for many years. Our family had valid Carpenter's Union Insurance during many of the years we lived there but when I had heart surgery there, the hospital chose to use BCHIS the British Columbia Health Insurance System for billing purposes because outside insurance billing inevitably raised their costs in the Collection Departments. During my adult life, I have had 4 heart surgeries to correct valve disease, three in US and the one in Canada. I can tell you there was absolutely NO difference in the quality of care I received in the surgery and post the op care. I am sick of hearing Americans complain about the evils of "socialized medicine" when I can personally attest to the fine care I got under such a plan, both during hospitalization and the day to day management of my illness. Variations in care in all systems has to do with efficient management of an institution or the physician's office rather than the system of payments.
your story is great.....
Google Ian Dobbin. He is the GOP strawman put forth in their non-budget budget "blueprint" which said he was going to die because a big-bad government official refused his experimental treatment. They neglected to mention that his experimental drug was approved in 30 days, he got it, he got chemo, and he got a bone marrow transplant to save his life. All under the UK's socialized medicine.
And what might that have cost him? Probably less than I pay in a copay for one allergy drug I take.
Google IAN DOBBIN.
We should do the same thing with Single Payer that BUSH did with the Iraq War spending, take it off the books and deal with it separately
Personally, if you ask me, I believe that any plan for "health care reform" (which should really be called insurance reform) should be put up for a majority vote of the people of the country, not voted on by our representatives.
The author here talks about Obama's Health Care (again insurance reform) plan, and yet I have not actually seen any insurance plan from Obama, or in fact anyone that I can put my full support behind.
Do we need reform? Absolutely! But we must have reform of the insurance AND health care, real medicine and technology improvements if any of it is going to be effective. Honestly folks, someone answer me this,
What is the point of paying less for insurance, if the medicine and technology we receive through that insurance is substandard and often doing more harm than good to our health??
How could it be any more substandard than it already is? People are loosing their houses, about 400,000 each and every year because of our FOR PROFIT, DISHONEST, FREE Market health care system....
and that is just a simple lab test...and yes I do work for a big fortune 500 company and yes i have health insurance.
I have health insurance as well, and Im not ashamed to admit, very good insurance. And, yes I do believe everyone should have the right and/or priveledge to the level of insurance I do. That is not my beef.
My beef is that even the people who have good insurance are being given medications that often exascerbate issues, or create other issues. Just ask any chemo patient about that one. And, there are many medications tthat create a biochemical change in the brain that leads to depression and suicidal ideation. And, still more drugs, if not all drugs have chemicals, additives, fillers and preservatives in them that are not able to be processed by organs that are paralyzed from pre-existing organ failure in those of us with disabilities, that will become worse with the addition of medication.
One of the ways to reduce costs of the medications, and thus reduce costs of insurance is to stop putting so much unnecessary crap in our medication, or have EVERYONE switch to natural cures and treatments that are often more effective than synthetic drugs
If you do not like the standard of care you get, call your local chapter of the American Medical Association or the hospital procedures committee to give them your "gripe". They are the ones who set the Standards of care for medical problems. It has nothing to do with the manner of payment except when there is no insurance and then doctors have to go to the "cheap" barrel to find something that the patient can afford.
Not true, it is the FDA who decides what chemicals, additives and fillers that go into the medication we receive. The AMA only has the ability to choose from the available pool of FDA approved drugs to distribute to doctors, hospitals, etc.
Why do you think there is so much controversy over higher quality, but controversial medications and treatments that are not FDA approved? For example, it is ILLEGAL for a doctor to "prescribe" an orange to give a patient Vitamin C to prevent scurvy, because oranges are not an FDA approved drug
Having just spent waiting an hour at the doctor's office for whatever and then gotten the run around at the pharmacy (having to return Monday) I can only hope that we finally adopt the European method of covering health care. Give me socialized , govt paid health care and take the damn for proffit blood sucking "insurance" companies out of the equation. HMO = Hand Money Over! This has beecome such a joke, we as a Nation should be ashamed for allowing this stupidity to continue for this long. Out of the top 25 "industrialized" nations we are the only ones who can't see the light. We spend so much on so many different carriers to cover the same thing, it is surprising that this is still going on. We pay for Medicare with pay roll deductions above that we or the employer pay for worker's comp, add to that the cost of private insurance or plan membership and drug coverage, supplemental insurance and what ever else, we could easily afford a higher tax and not having to make all the othe payments. Not only that, a huge burden would be lifted from employers, such as GM who spends more on health care than on steel per car. Get real, There is no room for free market capitalism in health care!
Amen. My family in Britain would never change the NHS for the US healthcare. Don't believe all the negative publicity about "long lines" "waiting for treatment" Socialized medicine WORKS. Taxpayers pay for the wealthy politicians to have health care (socialized?) Why not taxpayers?
I agree with all the above except for an addition to the "free market capitalism" comment. A big part of the problem is we don't have true free market capitalism in our healthcare system. We are just at the mercy of the insurance companies. The insurance companies are the real customers of the hospitals, doctors and labs. We are just an intermediate raw material. Nothing makes me more angry than watching doctors and hospitals billing thousands for dollars for services and then take 1/20th of the billed amount from the insurance company. This system of billing forces us to pay huge insurance premiums out of fear that even a single illness will bankrupt our families.
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing we should have free market healthcare. I would much rather see a British or Canadian health care model here in the US. I have never heard of a country that has a national healthcare plan vote it out and return to a system like we have here. It is a true crisis we have so many uninsured citizens in the US. I am all for using budget reconciliation to reform health care.
Good point, that people in countries with universal health care don't vote to do away with it. That is part of the reason why the GOP fights it so.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
