Give 'em Hell, Harry!

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has rolled out his plan for passing healthcare reform.  You can read his blistering letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), here.  My favorite excerpt, discussing the use of reconciliation, is this:

"Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class."

Sen. Conrad on Reconciliation

Senator Kent Conrad, (D-ND) chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, writes on the role of reconciliation in today's Washington Post. He points out that reconciliation is not being used to pass health reform. Health reform passed the Senate following the usual tortured process with 60 votes. Reconciliation is being used to pass a "fixer" bill that will clean up mistakes, like Nebraska's windfall Medicare match.

He points out that reconciliation has been used many times, including times in which the impact on the Federal deficit was significant -- the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts which resulted in increases in the deficit of $1.3 trillion and $350 billion respectively. The planned use of reconciliation to amend the health reform package will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next 10 years, and by $1.3 trillion between 2020 and 2030, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Dear Senator Johanns

Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) sent an email message to those who have communicated with him.  In the message, he outlined the reasons why majority rule and an up or down vote on healthcare is a dangerous thing. This was my caustic reply.

You are badly misreading the American public if you believe we have turned against healthcare reform.  Large majorities of Americans want an end to pre-existing condition exclusions and rescissions.  To do that requires all of us to be covered. Universal coverage requires subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage.  America needs the health reform bill to become law.   My friend (name redacted) needs the health reform bill to become law.  Her COBRA coverage expires in September.  She is currently being treated for thyroid cancer, and is out of work.  She has no prospects for being able to buy individual health insurance at the age of 57 with a cancer history, even though she has had health insurance for her entire life.  America can do better than leave a 57 year old woman with cancer uncovered when she is most in need of coverage.

We desperately need to slow the growth in healthcare spending, which, as Warren Buffett has pointed out clearly, is making our nation uncompetitive in the world.  All of our competitors have much lower health costs as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  We spend more than anyone else in the world (17% of GDP) to have the 37th best health system in the world, which is not as good as Costa Rica, and is only incrementally better than Slovenia. Meanwhile, Japan, with the 10th best health system in the world spends only 8.2% of GDP on healthcare; Germany, with the 25th best health system spends but 10.7% of GDP on healthcare, the United Kingdom, with the 18th best health system spends only 8.2% and France, with the world's best healthcare spends only 11.2% of GDP on health.   Healthcare costs are a cancer that is destroying our ability to compete in the world, and to recover from the Great Recession.

The Republican Party is standing in the way of what is best for America. So I completely disagree with your party-fed talking points that reconciliation is a bad way to pass refinements to healthcare reform. In case you have been asleep, the bill passed the Senate on December 24.  All that remains is to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions.  Since that involves primarily financial issues, it is a completely acceptable way to deal with the intransigence of the Republican Party. 

I fully support reconciliation as an effective means to get health reform passed.

Take this bill and reconcile it!

Republicans are not interested in supporting health reform.  The healthcare summit indicated they want to start over.  On issue after issue, it was pointed out that ideas that had been championed by Republicans were included in the bills which have passed the House or Senate, but still Republicans wouldn't vote for ideas they profess to support.  

I am reminded of the proposed Gregg-Conrad deficit reduction commission in the Senate, which was endorsed by President Obama, shortly before the bill was voted upon.  The bill was sponsored by Senators of both parties.  Sponsors included Republican Sensators, Sam Brownback (Kan.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), John Ensign (Nev.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), James Inhofe (Okla.) Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and John McCain (Ariz.), none of  whom voted for the bill they co-sponsored.  (Lisa Murkowski was away from the Senate for a family matter, and didn't vote.)  That's just nuts!