Many commentators have denounced the process by which the health care reform has made its way through Congress. There was the "Cornhusker kickback" which exempted the state of Nebraska from paying its share of Medicaid, and other back room deals that are not uncommon in the legislative process but which look bad when the light of day shines on them. There is Speaker Pelosi’s ridiculous plan to have the House pass the Senate bill without actually voting on it. &c.
But, the health care reform process has also shown something else, and that is the strength of our democracy and the vitality of its mores. First and foremost, although it has been may decades since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman first really focused on the need for universal health care, and every time the issue has been put off, it has returned to the forefront of the nation’s political agenda because enough Americans want it addressed. Those with much invested in the status quo have successfully staved off reform in the past, but this time they have been unable to stop it. The results of the 2008 election matter.
Secondly, the final bill is about as centrist as one can imagine, and it is so because the public has demanded it become so. Last summer, the Tea Party crowd raised two central objections to health care reform: They were concerned about its cost and they were worried about government taking over the delivery of health care. Sometimes the Tea Party crowd was woefully misinformed, for example, the public option was an option, not a government takeover. Other times, the Tea Partiers were comically misinformed, as when a man stood up at a rally with the sign "Keep your Gov’t Hands off my Medicare!" Perhaps in spite of themselves, the Tea Party crowd made it clear to Congress that the final bill could not add to the deficit and that many Americans can abide government regulation of health care, but not government administration of health care. I do not share the objection and would be perfectly happy if the Congress was about to pass a single-payer system, but my point of view remains in the minority and the effect of the Tea Party brigade was to shape the debate in a way that made the bill not better but more centrist. That is precisely how the Founders designed our system, to find the center, not the truth, through the competition of interests. This disappoints purists on both ideological sides, but it largely explains the success of the republic.
Thirdly, in recent days a flurry of polls have shown that the public is all over the place on the final bill. Some polls show that people are more likely to vote for a congressman if he supports the bill, others that they are more likely to vote against him. Some polls show people coming around to support the final bill, now that the White House has finally framed the debate as one between change and the status quo, but it remains highly controversial. In short, no fence-sitting congressman can decide how to vote by putting his or her finger to the wind. The wind is blowing in a lot of different directions and offers no guidance. This means that individual members of Congress must do what they think is right, what they think they can best defend. Per se, this weights the political process against reform: A member of Congress can always plead that he was in favor of better reform, but that this variety of reform was unacceptable for such and such reason, although that explanation works less well on an issue like health care that has gone on for more than a year. Still, this is another example of the system working as it was intended to: For good or ill, the Founders wanted to make government action difficult to accomplish.
Finally, the process has certainly informed the electorate. Yes, there have been red herrings like the charge that the bill included death panels. But, by and large, most people know more about the health care system and the options for fixing it than they did a year ago. I certainly know a hell of a lot more than I ever wanted to know about health care policy. The bill, if it passes, will not be a cure-all, and as it is implemented, more legislation will be required, just as Social Security and Medicare had to be amended over the years. It will help to have an informed electorate engaged in that on-going work – and, I should add, an electorate that is about to see that the sky will not fall when President Obama signs the health care bill.
It appears the final vote in the House will be on Sunday. The Senate will take up the reconciliation package next week. It has been a long road but it has been a profoundly small-d democratic road. The moment that has eluded previous generations is coming to pass at long last because democracy has demanded that government address the horrific inequities and rising costs of our health care system. That democratic impulse manifested itself by electing Barack Obama and his promise of real change to the White House, and a Congress with majorities in both houses that pledged themselves to reform health care. The public debate has shaped the movement the public need had demanded. This is democracy in action. Sometimes it is not pretty in detail, but let us not lose the forest for the trees. It is a sloppy, messy, occasionally maddening, but magnificent way to achieve self-governance. As Churchill famously said, "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Indeed.
Michael Sean Winters
Deeming something passed is not an untoward way to finish this bill, nor is using reconciliation for the final financial details. Indeed, deeming it passed when passage hinges on working on the financial aspects is actually rather appropriate.
What is inappropriate is for Congressman Stupak to insist on a measure that will not pass the Senate. If he wishes to insist on his provision and really does not want to kill the bill, then he needs to tell us where the additional Senate votes for his bill are coming from. He needs 15 to overcome a Byrd Rule point of order from the left (or 5 if Biden overrules the parlimentarian). Brown is a gimme, as would be Reid. He still needs 3 votes. Unless he can deliver Levin and Stabenow and get other members of his "12" to turn their Democratic Senators as well, he needs to hang it up or admit he is cooperating with National Right to Life and the Republican Party to kill the bill.
Still, as dysfunctional as our government this legislation is a lot better than the for-profit health insurance industry and the bogus "consumer empowerment" rhetoric that opponents have shoveled on us.
Forgettaboutit.. most Americans can't spell or define deeming and reconciliation!
1. This is the way laws get passed in Congress-I don't like it either, but the way this legislation is working its way through Congress is not unique.
2. Obama did have a mandate: remember this was a core promise in his presidential run and he won the election handily. Indeed, many Americans are skeptical but a good number of these skeptics (including me) don't think it goes far enough. As MSW points out the polls are all over the place on the matter but they indicate that a majority want some change.
I suspect that one of tne of the issues that will be discussed for some time will be the USCCB's role.
I do care more about ending the violence committed against the innocent unborn than I do about some undefined right for health care.
You have a very shallow view of how and why people contribute to their churches.
Did their grandparents and great-grandparents have the benefit of a tax writeoff for charitable contributions? They still contributed up to and, in some cases, well beyond their means.
If your contribution to your church is predicated on taxation, your faith is a wee bit shallow.
Peace.
Where on earth (or elsewhere) do you come up with this stuff? Our medical training and expertise is the envy of the world. Why else do you think the world's dictators seek out the Mayo & other clinics when they need treatment? So your assertion that your proposal would be an "improvement" on the current system is a total joke. And your assertion that such a system would end legalized abortion "in a generation" is so untenable...I don't know on what basis you even suggest such an idea.
I notice, by the way, that the left has stopped the charade of suggesting that this bill incorporates conservative ideas such as med malpractice reform. The trial lawyers' grip on the Democratic Party remains secure. They must be licking their chops at this "reform"...so much more malpractice to find!!
To each his own I guess. Its really funny to me that on the one hand you talk about how we can all agree to disagree about this thing with integrity, etc., but then go on these tirades about "conservative misinformation". I wish you spend more time analyzing politics rather than being an advocate.
I also find it odd that at least some of the people so hostile to a large central government controlling health care seem more comfortable with a large central government that can arrest people without trial or even formal charges, hold them indefinitely without trial, and even torture them. Conservatives and libertarians above all should recognize that if a government starts doing that even to "bad" people, it is apt to continue doing it to annoying or inconvenient people before too long. And should there not be concern too about a defense/national security budget approaching one trillion a year, with nearly 800 bases around the world? We're going to spend upwards of $300 billion for a new fighter plane, and our principal enemies do not even have an air force. I'm guilty of inconsistency too, but I'd prefer a bit bigger government providing health care, and a smaller one for violence.
What scares me is that as the government grows, the relevance of religious institutions becomes less and less. When the government forces ''charity'' through the redistribution of wealth, legislates morality through abortion laws and gay marriage, and takes over health care, what's left for the Church to do? A letter writer to my local paper today suggested that the Church should be taxed because of its influence on our elected leaders. When the government finds that is is unable to afford its programs, surely the people will be taxed more, other sources of tax revenue will be sought (including the Church), and with less money in their pockets and knowing that their donations will be yet another from of tax to them, donations to the Church will drop.
Bye-bye Catholic Church, hello to a government-controlled society.
Because the first purpose of the national government is to defend the citizens and shores of this country from those who are its enemies. The "people" you refer to are, by and large, either A) not US citizens & therefore not legally entitled to the Constitutional protections afforded US citizens (its a matter of categorization) or B) Enemy combatants who may or may not be US citizens capture on foreign territory engaged in active combat with US forces. Again, US law does not extend to foreign lands and therefore does not protect these people either; they have the protections of general "international" law such as the Geneva Convention. And its laughable to me that liberals object to US treatment of non-US citizens or enemy combatants, but appear sanguine about the treatment of our soldiers or citizens when captured by our enemies. In those places, the "equivalent" of Miandizing people is videotaping their "confession" before they're beheaded. I'm for affording basic due process protections, but before liberals castigate their own government first (why do they ALWAYS do that by the way), they should view our processes in light of whats afforded by other "societies".
This is untrue. Every poll I've seen shows the public opposing the bill.
"Finally, the process has certainly informed the electorate."
Also untrue. I am retired and have the time to read two major newspapers every day, and watch discussions on talk shows. I have dozens of questions about the bill which remain unanswered. The absurd claims and lies on both sides add to the confusion. e.g. we are told that adding 30 million people in need of government subsidized insurance will save money and lower the deficit. Who in the world can believe such nonsense?
The bill is obviously a mix of good and bad. I have no informed opinion on whether the good outweighs the bad. Prudence would seem to require that the bill be simplified and much more clearly explained before it passes. Only a supremely arrogant writer or editorialist would pretend to understand it.
We agree that we need to reform our system of health care and insurance and that Obama had the mandate. At the same time, such reform should not be purchased by the corruption of the democratic process. Let me also add that nor should it be purchased by the corruption of the English language and fundamental morality, which would result if abortion, which is in most cases is elective surgery, is paid for by public funds.