Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.
In the Democratic-run Senate, there are enough votes to pass meaningful health care reform legislation largely along the lines offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — if it were simply about the legislation’s merits. There are just 40 Republicans in the Senate, but over the weekend this tyranny of the minority tried to block the Senate from even discussing the legislation, which would be the most significant health care initiative since the creation of Medicare more than four decades ago. It takes 60 votes to permit debate on legislation, and usually this is a mere formality. But the Senate Republican leadership has been waging hyperpartisan politics to try to stymie the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Along the way they have engaged in the same kind of fear tactics that Republicans used to try to derail Social Security and Medicare. They are claiming today, as they did then, that government involvement is socialism. Try to imagine a United States of America today without these safety nets. For that matter, if guaranteed health care is OK for individuals 65 and over, why shouldn’t younger Americans be afforded the same protection?
Fortunately, all 58 Democrats and the two independents who caucus with Democrats stood together Saturday and voted to proceed with the debate. A couple of moderate Democrats who are up for reelection in 2010, Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln and Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, said that although they were in favor of continuing the debate, this doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll back health care reform legislation when it comes up for a final vote.
Nonetheless, for the time being at least, Republican leaders’ scaremongering efforts to persuade wavering Democrats and independents to side with them to short-circuit the debate didn’t work, although all Republicans stood together as an obstructionist bloc. Still, the question needs to be asked: Just what are the Republicans afraid of?
As Reid so aptly put it Saturday in addressing his colleagues: “After all, if we are not debating — if we refuse to let the Senate do its job — what are we doing here? If senators refuse to debate about a profound crisis affecting every single citizen, the nation must ask: In whose interest do you vote?
“Surely deliberating a health reform bill cannot be more difficult than deciding which to pay this month: your mortgage or your medical bills. It can’t be more painful than telling your child you can’t take him or her to the doctor because it costs too much. It can’t be more humbling than facing your own employees and telling them, ‘I’m sorry, you can’t count on me for your health insurance next year. You’re on your own.’ And it can’t be more upsetting than having an insurance company take away your coverage at the exact moment you need it the most.”
Although Reid was able to hold all the Democrats together this time, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who caucuses with Democrats, signaled Sunday that they might join with Republicans on future procedural votes to block the health care reform legislation. Meanwhile, understanding the math involved, The New York Times reported Monday that Senate Democratic leaders will try to work with two of the more moderate Republicans, Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, to see if they can find common ground.
Snowe, for example, has indicated her opposition in the past to the legislation that includes a public option. She instead favors a “trigger,” which would let a public option come into being in states only if, after time, not enough people are able to get affordable insurance.
We think Reid has offered a sensible alternative that would seem to meet the concerns of Snowe and others who are concerned about a public option. The Reid alternative would be to let states opt out of participating in a public option. So it would appear that at least a couple of Republicans might be willing to compromise.
Reid, who is up for reelection in 2010, comes from a centrist state that often votes for conservative politicians, so he has a lot riding on his decision to personally steer health care reform legislation through the Senate. The politically safe course would have been for Reid to let someone else carry the legislation instead of having all of the partisan slings and arrows shot his way by the Republicans who so desperately want to see him defeated next year. Reid, unlike the Republican leaders, is displaying political courage — something Americans want to see in their elected officials.
We hope Republicans heed something else Reid said Saturday: “Do not try to silence a great debate over a great crisis. Do not let history show that when given the chance to debate and defend your position, to work with us for the good of our country and constituents, you ran and hid. You cannot wish away a great emergency by closing one’s eyes and pretending it doesn’t exist.”
Too Big Too Fail Harry Greid used Payola to get vote. Greid is using hundreds of millions of our taxpayer money to pay off Democratic Senator.
Over 51% of the people oppose the Reid and Pelosi bills. Just 31% favor those bills
Reid's bill will cost $849 billion plus the $247 billion "doc fix" plus the $490 billion taken from seniors Medicare or $1.587 trillion and
It still will NOT cover 6% (18 million) of the people.
The public option will only cover 1.5% (4.5 million) people.
For $1.5 trillion for something we start pay for now but will not see the benefit of for 5 years -- 2 years after Obama is out of Office. David Broder of the Washington Post says The specific budget gimmick is that Reid has delayed the subsidies "from mid-2013 to January 2014 -- long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
We have not solved much.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are tone deaf. They do not respond to our phone calls, e-mails, townhalls, or rallies. They refuse to listen to us because we are lairs to them, but mostly because we do not believe them or trust them.
Ah, another chapter in Greenspun's love-fest with Sir-Saint Harry Reid the courageous warrior. Next we will be having a parade down Las Vegas Boulevard while the royal subjects pay homage to King Harry the Great.
Nice to see we can comment on His Highness Harry, now that the Sun's reign of censorship has drawn to a close.
Another entitlement program like Social Security and Medicare will bankrupt our children and grandchildren. It will turn this country into another socialist state just like old Europe. Then everyone can remember how it used to be in free enterprise America.
Harry has upped the ante to $300 Million to Louisiana's Mary Landrieu to bribe her vote. If the bill is so wonderful, why do the senators need to be bribed?
Health care is a basic human right, and Senator Reid through this bill has figured out a way to provide that to 97% of Americans.
You Naysayers who only like the dog eat dog world of selfishness and corporate greed never cease to amaze me.
Will Harry Reid show real leadership and move to eliminate the current insurance and health care for Congress and all government employees and make them take what has been planned for the rest of us? Not on your life, folks. Harry knows a good thing when he sees it; he doesn't have the guts to cut out their own insurance and health coverage because he knows perfectly well what he has prepared for us...he wants no part of that. Harry Reid is a yellow coward with no guts to face the reality of his actions.
Harry, you like to brag about your collegeate boxing days; you haven't the courage to fight a real fight for the people you represent. A snake and weasel politican from day one you are among the worst ever for Nevada. The seniors and veterans of Nevada won't forget you at election time. You will soon return to Searchlight, Nevada defeated and hated more than any other politician in Nevada History. I hope you can live the ret of your days with that!!!!
Paid for by the re-elect Harry Reid campaign. Harry Reid approves of this message.
Poll after legit poll shows that more Nevadans and American voters are against these bills than for them.
Seems like Reid is working for the lib wing of the Democratic Party and working against the wishes of the Nevada's voters.
I guess he has already written-off his re-election bid.
Reid and the Democrats will cave to the right like they always do. By the time health care gets to Obama's desk it will be a capital gains tax cut.
Polls show that the American people want comprehensive healthcare reform.
Senator Reid is a center-right Democrat.
When the healtcre bill passes, he will win re-election by a wide margin for showing strong leadership on this issue. This is the opposite of the Republicans that continue to want to trade the lives of our people for corporate greed and campaign contributions.
Dear Las Vegas Sun editorial board,
America needs a government that checks the power of the majority. We need a government that checks the power of a concentrated minority. And if Republicans are a tyranny of the minority, what does that make you? A tyranny of the majority? A tyranny non the less.
Now I understand things better. Dirty Harry just has to bribe senators to get his lousy bill supported
From the horses mouth, an OECD study on US health care prices,
"All other OECD countries have more mechanisms built into their health systems to restrict expenditures than is the case in the United States, even though most if not all people in these other countries are covered by health insurance. This is done either by regulating quantities or prices or both, including the dissemination of new technologies, or by requiring a greater proportion of costs out of pocket (as is the case in the United States for long-term care spending, an area where, no doubt as a result, total spending is relatively low). Regulating the price of inputs -- doctors' fees, hospital payments, pharmaceutical prices and so on -- is one way of constraining prices. Controlling volume often requires measures that restrict choice; occasionally limit access to care which someone insured under a typical US health plan would be able to access, or expose people to the risk of catastrophically high out-of-pocket payments unless a safety net is in place. By paying such a price, the result is that other countries are able to afford universal health care access at a lower cost than in the United States."
In order to control costs in a universal health care system you must A) ration care and B) institute wage and price controls
http://www.oecdwash.org/PDFILES/Pearson_...
"In order to control costs in a universal health care system you must A) ration care and B) institute wage and price controls"
We have that now, except it's the insurance companies doing the rationing, with annual and lifetime benefit limits. They also dictate how much they will pay for specific procedures, and the medical care providers have to make up the difference by overcharging those with no coverage. Ever wonder why the most common reason for personal bankruptcy is medical bills? Do you really think it's good public policy to leave one in six Americans at risk of bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness?
You might prefer letting "the market" decide these matters, but after the way "the market" nearly collapsed the world economy in the last few years, I'd rather not. It isn't a level playing field, and letting the corporations referee the games they play in is not my idea of "freedom."
gypc, apparently countries with universal health care do far more rationing and wage and price controlling than in America. That is self evident afterall because you can see their waiting lines...waiting lines which the OECD admits occurs in ALL universal coverage countries.
Here is a better, smarter, more economical approach to the problem
Here is what you do.
1) Eliminate restrictions on health insurance competition - each state prohibits you from buying policies out of state
2) Eliminate health insurance mandates. Why should I have to pay for coverage for drug abuse counseling if I never use drugs?
3) Promote health savings accounts
4) Require employers to provide health care benefits in cash. a) Ensure that the government does not tax this cash or b) adjusts the progressive income tax down accordingly.
5) If doing (a) above, give a dollar for dollar tax credit to anyone who purchases health insurance or a health savings account that is not given cash by their employer. If doing (b) above provide everyone a dollar for dollar tax credit for purchasing health insurance or a health savings account.
6) Provide a direct deposit of cash (maybe $1,000 per year) into a health savings account for low-income people if they sign up for a high deductable insurance policy (which can cost as little as $20-$30 a month).
PS, my idea of freedom isn't robbing from others, threatening others, and forcing people to do things against their will.
Good on Senator Reid. Don't listen to the teabagger liars. We already have "rationing" and "death panels" by way of the HMOs. If anything, health care reform done right will mean less of this garbage that the insurance companies put us through and more choices for the consumers. And yes, one of those choices must be a public health insurance option open to everyone who'd like to opt into one on Day One.
If the bill is done right and becomes law ASAP, Reid won't have to worry about 2010.
Why does the left keep making the homophobic "teabagger" comment? I don't get it. Why the hate?
Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.
I wonder how much it will cost to buy off Lieberman? 500 mil? 1 bill? I actually believe him (how foolish to put trust in a politician, I know!) so doa is the bill. another failure in the Obama, Reid, Pelosi regime!
In a staggering reversal from last week the poll suggests just 38% of American voters now favor the Democratic health care plan against 56% who are opposed.
Galfromvegas - "Health care is a basic human right".
Where in the world did you get this notion? From the esteemed senior senator from Nevada?
Isn't food much more important than health care in the interest of keeping people alive? Why don't you consider eating to be a basic human right? Why aren't you screaming for free food supplied by your government? You liberals think that continuously spreading falsehoods will make sane people believe them.
Please, Galfromvegas, tear up your voter registration card now. You don't have the IQ to warrant the ability to vote. Then go get a job. No, wait, there are no jobs. Call Harry and ask him why.
When medical science figures out how to stop the effects of aging, I guarantee the left will claim immortality is a basic human right. Every time the market makes a leap forward in innovation thus improving the human condition, what once did not exist becomes a basic human right. It is nonsense.
LarryS-what do you mean by esteemed senator? Call a spade a spade. Harry Greid is a pathetic little weasel. Esteemed my rear end.
There are no jobs because the idiots that run the government have taxed the h*ll out of the productive Americans to support the social parasites. I only hope I live to see the government go broke. The aftermath will be quite entertaining.
Harry Reid should have no trouble winning re-election. With Acorn on duty, he'll have at his disposal the votes of all those who are deceased - and that's a lot of votes.
jib101 - I believe there will be an aftermath, as you said. Faster than ever before, the federal government is rushing toward an inevitable destruction and the citizens are more in a state of unrest than ever before.
I disagree with you that it will entertaining. I never thought I'd be stockpiling essentials for survival but I am now. I believe our country can't continue for more than 2-3 years on the current path. Watch the value of the dollar for warnings of some widespread civil unrest.
Medical care is a basic human right? How about a job so you can pay for food and shelter? Aren't those far more basic? I doubt very much that I can quit my job and demand that the government, at any level, provide all those things for me.
Oh wait, the government demands that I, a working person, provide these things for anyone else who claims they can not be productive.