Passing Health Care Reform in the Senate

[FiveParadox]

Health care reform is indeed a topic that dominates discussion in the United States of America at the moment, so I thought that I would watch some television and read some news on the issue so as to be more knowledgeable during debate and conversation. However, one of the noteable issues that came up today was the statements, by several members of the Republican Party of the United States, that for reform to pass in the Senate, the support of at least around eighty senators would be needed.

It looks as though the Republicans are making up the rules as they go along.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but my understanding of the workings of the United States Senate is that the support of 51 senators is needed to pass a piece of legislation (as that would be a majority of senators, and therefore the threshold needed to pass). The only exception to that rule, as I understand it, is that the support of sixty senators would be needed to invoke cloture on a debate. There is no precedent for a need for eighty senators, or anywhere near that, to pass a piece of legislation, despite whatever might be suggested by The Honorable Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah), The Honorable Senator Michael Enzi (Wyoming), and The Honorable Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa).

The Democrats have the numbers to pass health care reform themselves.

The Democratic Party of the United States holds 256 seats in the House of Representatives (a majority of 39 votes), enough to pass health care reform despite conservative opposition. With the Senate, the story is much the same, where the Democrats command sixty seats (with the two independent senators caucusing with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a majority of 9 votes) to be able to not only pass health care reform with a majority, but to invoke cloture to halt extraneous opposition debate.

 

[karrie]

No. The US should not pass health care reform right now.

If health care reform were to pass right now, it would be too easily viewed as 'shoved down the throats' of the American public. It should be debated, examined, and when the government is elected in three more years, voted on in the Senate after the election. That way it will be clear that the country was voicing what it wants on health care. Otherwise it would just be repealed again later.

 

[Liberalman]

It is important for the American healthcare reform to go through now and it is better to shove it down the American throats because for years the private healthcare companies have been shoving it up American A$$E$.

Once government healthcare is in place the American people will be the winners.

 

[strange]

I think that the debate is going on right now and if it weren't for the fringe fractions of both parties it might be helpful. The administration is open to new ideas. Yesterday an idea was mentioned of having non-profit groups instead of the government provide health care for the 50 million Americans not insured. This bill will take time and a lot of manipulation but in his first term Obama will be able to do what every democratic president has been trying to do since Johnson fix health care.

 

[VanIsle]

Not for profit groups are not a reliable enough source for something as important as the countries health care. Health Care in the USA was a campaigne promise by Obama so he needs to move forward with it quickly. He should have had some kind of plan in place before he made the promise.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Democrats must pass some kind of health care reform, however tame. It was an election promise. If after all this debate, all the shouting, rancor, bitterness, Democrats don’t pass it, that will be the surest way to lose control of Senate and House.

Democrats have a much better chance of keeping the control of senate and House if they pass health care reform, something that they can take to voters in 2010. Republicans are fully aware of that, so they are opposing any reform tooth and nail. They hope for a repeat of 1994, when Democrats failed to pass the health care reform and (partly as a result of that) lost control of Senate and House in 1994, for the next 12 years.

If Democrats do not pass health care reform, they will go down to a well deserved defeat in 2010. They have the votes; there is no excuse not to pass the reform.

 

[ironsides]

Buffett: U.S. Could Become Banana Republic

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:06 PM

By: Julie Crawshaw


Warren Buffett says the growing mountain of U.S. debt could turn the country into a banana republic.

“Unchecked carbon emissions will likely cause icebergs to melt,” Buffett writes in The New York Times.

“Unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt.”

The U.S. economy appears to be on a slow path to recovery, Buffett notes, but “enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered,” creating an annual deficit more than twice any since 1920 aside from war-impacted years of 1942-1946.

Most of the effects of this are still invisible, but “their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.”

Congress, Buffett says, must end the rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio and bring U.S. growth in obligations back in line with U.S. growth in resources.

Even if much of this debt were covered by foreign investors and by Americans saving substantially more than they have done in years, Buffett estimates Treasury would have to find $900 billion to finance the remainder of the debt it is issuing.

“We don’t want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy described by Keynes,” he says.

China reduced its holdings of U.S. government debt by the largest margin in nearly nine years in June, cutting its holdings by nearly 3 percent, according to data from the Department of Treasury.

In 2008, the Chinese increased their holdings in U.S. debt by 52 percent over 12 months.





© 2009

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps you could discuss how the article that you posted, ironsides, relates to the proposed changes to the health care system? It might be an interesting conversation—that is, whether or not health care reform should be dictated by the economic or budgetary status of the United States or its government. I would have thought that health care reform would have taken precedence over budget concerns, when the lives of uninsured Americans are in the balance?

What role do you expect health care expenditures to play in the Senate’s passage (or rejection) of reform?

 

[ironsides]

Everyone has an agenda including certain parts of the goverment as well as the press. Yes there are some people who have absolutely no insurance but even they are not turned away when they need healthcare. It is just the doctors and hospitals can charge pretty much what they want and the taxpayer will pay it. Those people maybe 6-7 million, not 47 million as the Democrats or press would have you believe. Why not just give them some insurance coverage without upsetting the whole apple cart. Put some control on what insurance companies can charge, or just add everyone to same healthplan the Senate has, or them to what they propose for us.

 

[Niflmir]

They need something like what happened in Canada.

Saskatchewan to shame the rest of the country into following suit.

 

[ironsides]

I know the goverment can control health costs thru the insurance companies because Florida makes sure insurance companies do not overcharge for hurricane insurance. It is costly, but reasonable and the state controls those costs.

 

[Niflmir]

I know the goverment can control health costs thru the insurance companies because Florida makes sure insurance companies do not overcharge for hurricane insurance. It is costly, but reasonable and the state controls those costs.

Wouldn't that just make it more expensive than providing the insurance in the first place?

Here is my reasoning: doing what you explain creates administrative overhead both in the government and in the insurance companies, thus increasing the cost or decreasing the value (as you prefer). If the government was just to provide the coverage themselves, then the insurance could be cheaper (since they would not have to cover this) and the government could just pay the actual damages (since they do not need to make a profit) when the damage occurs.

Paying the actual cost is always cheaper in the long run than paying for private insurance. The reasons for needing insurance come from the fact that typically one would have to pay too much at once. The government doesn't have to be profitable, just cost effective, and doesn't need as much administration because of a simplicity of plans: one plan, equal for all people.

 

[darkbeaver]

In the sense of the term, isn't being cost effective profitable in of itself and wouldn't being profitable in the capitalist sense really be an inefficiency as seen in the conservation sense of too much being as bad as too little.

 

[ironsides]

Wouldn't that just make it more expensive than providing the insurance in the first place?

Here is my reasoning: doing what you explain creates administrative overhead both in the government and in the insurance companies, thus increasing the cost or decreasing the value (as you prefer). If the government was just to provide the coverage themselves, then the insurance could be cheaper (since they would not have to cover this) and the government could just pay the actual damages (since they do not need to make a profit) when the damage occurs.

Paying the actual cost is always cheaper in the long run than paying for private insurance. The reasons for needing insurance come from the fact that typically one would have to pay too much at once. The government doesn't have to be profitable, just cost effective, and doesn't need as much administration because of a simplicity of plans: one plan, equal for all people.

The goverment would never take the easy way, they will create a new government organization driving up the costs yearly just like any public entity does.

 

[lone wolf]

The goverment would never take the easy way, they will create a new government organization driving up the costs yearly just like any public entity does.

And an insurance-based idea won't???? They're like Unions in that they have apparently bottomless pockets (filled with your money) and drive prices to far beyond what the little (uninsured) guy can afford.

 

[ironsides]

And an insurance-based idea won't???? They're like Unions in that they have apparently bottomless pockets (filled with your money) and drive prices to far beyond what the little (uninsured) guy can afford.

Insurance companies have to be controlled, but not by another entity that has a proven record of being just as or worse when it comes to greed.

 

[lone wolf]

Insurance companies have to be controlled, but not by another entity that has a proven record of being just as or worse when it comes to greed.

The one big difference between Government-run health care and insurance-company run health care is government is answerable to the public once every four years. Profits-driven companies answer only to the investors. I would rather see government out of it too. It all boils down to who will be less greedy?

 

[ironsides]

We tried getting some of those I.O.U.'s paid back and they (the goverment) ignored us. Greed is the driving force, and no country seems to be immune to it.

 

[normbc9]

Follow the money and that will tell us how this will finally play out. The waxman concept is flawed but his own team memebers are split on how they want to continue. This is a time where the big Health Care insurer lobbyists are raking in the money and busy to the max. What will emerge is what is bought by the Health Care, Drug & Pharmaceutical and Medical providers lobbies want. Now we should understand why the Congress will not extend to the citizens the same Health Care plan they enjoy.

 

[ironsides]

Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.
YouTube - Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.