. . . If 41 members of the U.S. Senate are determined to block the will of the American people, then let them . . . No, make them . . . FILIBUSTER. If there are 41 arrogant senators who would deny majority rule, make those 41 senators talk all day and talk all night until they are sick and old, or until a few of them come to their senses.
When did 60 votes become the functioning majority in that formerly great deliberative body, the U.S. Senate? Look: Half of 100 senators is 50. Therefore, 51 senators is a majority. That’s the way it used to be, and that’s the way it should be.
The U.S. Constitution provides for “extended debate” to protect the rights of a minority, not to smother the rights of the majority. Sixty votes is the number required to end a filibuster. The filibuster was used sparingly through history. Usually filibusters proceeded for a few nights or a few weeks, until some senators switched sides to end the obstruction and allow a vote on the issue of the day.
Now, by pretending that a 60-vote filibuster-proof super-majority is necessary to conduct business, the U.S. Senate has effectively rendered itself dysfunctional.
In the present case of health care reform, requested by President Barack Obama and supported by a decisive majority of the American people, there is a solution. The solution is to vote for cloture, or make the obstructionist minority talk until they wear out their vocal cords and the voters’ patience.
After the filibuster collapses under the anger of the voters, a majority of 51 or more Democratic senators (and moderate Republicans, if any) will pass a health-care bill and send it to President Obama for his signature.
And let the record show that we are talking about a health-care bill that includes a “public option” alongside private health insurance. – Bernie Hayden
RSS - Posts
2 Comments
July 1, 2009 at 4:35 am
well put! concise, too….
July 1, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I have written at some considerable length on this issue, See http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-health-care-policy-morass.html
My conclusion:
“I have to admit at this point to a net leaning toward the Single Payer concept, potential warts and all. I do not see that happening anytime soon, however — certainly not this year. We seem to be headed toward an inscrutably hyper-complex re-jiggering of our no-value-adding “health care” paper-pushing industry. I hope I’m wrong.”
I first did a detailed analysis of the Single Payer argument 15 years ago while in grad school. See my blog post for details.
Some analysts have argued that we can in fact cover everyone, with better outcomes, and save perhaps 30% in the process. Even so, do the per capita math (sit down first). 2008 estimated U.S. “health care” spending ~= $2.55 trillion. Divide by a 307 million U.S. population. Decrement by 30%. You still get more than $5,800 per year PER PERSON. Substantially more if you restrict the “population” to only adult civilian non-institutionalized, i.e., those actually or potentially on the hook for payment.
Now, of course, Congress is not buying the “save money” part. The draft Senate bill only speaks to “reducing the growth in spending” (link to that document in my blog post appendix). So, re-do the math. Give yourselves more heartburn. Actually, I’ve posted a spreadsheet people can download and use to play the “what-ifs?”
See http://www.bgladd.com/data/PerCapitaHealthCareCosts.xls
No easy answers to this problem.
Sample spreadsheet calculation here:
http://www.bgladd.com/data/PerCapitaHealthCareCosts.jpg
Recognizing that it’s never going to be allocated strictly “per capita,” (e.g., just look at the monthly “family of 4″ data) so, then, the essentially zero-sum game becomes deciding who or which strata have to pay proportionally more. It’s worth noting that, even were we to somehow miraculously cut the NHE (National Health Expenditure) by 50%, the resulting aggregate amount would still be more than TWICE our military budget.