Friday, November 21, 2003
Hacking Away The Vine That Medicare Was Supposed To Wither On
To any of you who made a call, sent a fax, or an email yesterday, thank-you.
The first vote on closing off debate in the Senate on the energy bill took place this morning, and by three votes, the supporters of the bill lost the cloture vote, Six Republicans voted with 43 Democrats and Sen Jeffords against cloture. That means six Democrats voted for the bill. Among the Republicans who joined the Democrats were McCain, Sununu and Greg, both of New Hampshire, Sens Snowe and Collins, I believe. I think Specter, who had been on the fence, voted for cloture.
That doesn't end things, this is a big one for the administration, and for its corporate benefactors. Debate will continue, and if those forty votes can't be kept in line the bill will pass on a simple majority vote.
The longer the debate goes on, the more likely it is that some "yes" votes for cloture might be turned; the debate thus far has been devastatingly one sided. There are no good arguments for this bill. Editorial comment around the country is almost universally negative. The NYTimes and the WSJournal agree on this one. The more the debate goes on, the more embarrassing it will be for "moderate" Republicans like Specter to continue to support it. Had the vote gone their way this morning, the bill would have passed by this afternoon, and the voting public would've had little chance to take note of what its government is doing to it.
BTW, none of the Senators, as yet, have a full copy of the bill on their desk; it was released on the web only 48 hours before debate began. Sen. McCain has suggested, not without design.
Keep the pressure up. Email or call Senators, both Republican and Democrat, who voted for cloture and try and shame them into changing their vote. This site, which you should bookmark for the future, sometimes referred to as "Juan's," makes it easy to find out which Senators and Representatives represent which states, and with a few clicks provides you with contact information, and the webpage for every member of congress.
On to Medicare.
Did you ever think you'd look back on Newt Gringrich with fond appreciation for his subtlety and nuance? Newt, you may recall, was content to let Medicare wither on the vine. The introduction of medical savings accounts and private HMO's would prove the vast superiority of private markets to government programs when it came to fostering good health care at affordable prices. Two decades of experience with HMO's has taught us Newt was wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with the concept of HMOs. But increasingly, they are having difficulty providing both affordable health insurance and good care.
So Bush and the current Republican congress said to themselves, "86 the withering, Medicare will have to be hacked to death, if the way is to be cleared for privitizing the program. Their "term" for this process is "modernizing" Medicare, bringing it into the twenty-first century.
That is what underlies their willingness to engage on the subject of controlling subscription medicine costs, and adding a prescription benefit to Medicare. In the Spring, the Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy agreed to a compromise on the issue of the prescription benefit, as long as the nature of Medicare was preserved. The Senate bill Democrats approved wasn't a good one from their perspective, but as Kennedy said, the party could not in good conscience refuse the needed benefit, but Democrats made clear that if the conference went too far in the direction of the House version of the bill, that would cost their support.
No surprise, Republicans paid no attention. The operating assumption of the Bush/Rove policy here has been to produce a bill that can be sold as the long awaited prescription benefit for seniors, but that does much more, all of it bad, all of it in the direction of privitization, so that Democrats would have the noxious choice of voting yes, and giving Bush a huge win, exhibit A for his compassionate conservatism, or voting no, and being accused of playing politics.
The privitization in this bill isn't what Gingrich was talking about. This is worse. This is subsidized privitization, protected by shackling government's ability to regulate, or in this case, negotiate prices with drug companies.
Democrats are pretty firm in their opposition. My suggestion, call your own Senators and tell them to vote "no" to cloture and to the bill. Tell them it's too lousy of a bill to give Bush that big a win. And tell them their constituents see through the bill.
Biggest talking point from my perspective - Bush's inability to work with anyone who doesn't already agree with him. Bush, the uniter, not the divider, has allowed his party to exclude Democrats from any genuine input in the conference that hammered out the final bill. This is unprecendented. And don't let anyone tell you Democrats behaved the same way when they were the majority party. Tell your Senator that they cannot vote for a bill that disenfrachised you by treating your vote for a Democratic Senator as if it meant nothing. The Democrats compromised; Bush said, you patsies. As in his foreign policy, Bush seems to think that there is something wrong, read weak, in working with people who aren't already in complete agreement with you. He feels contempt for the very notion of compromise. Fine. The price for that is no bill. It's Bush's price. Not the Democrats. He can still have a bill. If he's willing to lead his party to the table where Democrats are already sitting, ready to find a genuine compromise.
One more thought; Leiberman is on the fence on the Medicare bill; he says he wants to study it. If you have the time, let him know there's nothing to be had, especially by a potential Presidential candidate, in folding on this one.
BTW, those AARP commercials that say Seniors can't wait, the first year of the benefit is 2006. So there's plenty of time before the next election to get a decent bill, and not a senior will be deprived of a single penny's worth of help with not a single prescription bill.
The first vote on closing off debate in the Senate on the energy bill took place this morning, and by three votes, the supporters of the bill lost the cloture vote, Six Republicans voted with 43 Democrats and Sen Jeffords against cloture. That means six Democrats voted for the bill. Among the Republicans who joined the Democrats were McCain, Sununu and Greg, both of New Hampshire, Sens Snowe and Collins, I believe. I think Specter, who had been on the fence, voted for cloture.
That doesn't end things, this is a big one for the administration, and for its corporate benefactors. Debate will continue, and if those forty votes can't be kept in line the bill will pass on a simple majority vote.
The longer the debate goes on, the more likely it is that some "yes" votes for cloture might be turned; the debate thus far has been devastatingly one sided. There are no good arguments for this bill. Editorial comment around the country is almost universally negative. The NYTimes and the WSJournal agree on this one. The more the debate goes on, the more embarrassing it will be for "moderate" Republicans like Specter to continue to support it. Had the vote gone their way this morning, the bill would have passed by this afternoon, and the voting public would've had little chance to take note of what its government is doing to it.
BTW, none of the Senators, as yet, have a full copy of the bill on their desk; it was released on the web only 48 hours before debate began. Sen. McCain has suggested, not without design.
Keep the pressure up. Email or call Senators, both Republican and Democrat, who voted for cloture and try and shame them into changing their vote. This site, which you should bookmark for the future, sometimes referred to as "Juan's," makes it easy to find out which Senators and Representatives represent which states, and with a few clicks provides you with contact information, and the webpage for every member of congress.
On to Medicare.
Did you ever think you'd look back on Newt Gringrich with fond appreciation for his subtlety and nuance? Newt, you may recall, was content to let Medicare wither on the vine. The introduction of medical savings accounts and private HMO's would prove the vast superiority of private markets to government programs when it came to fostering good health care at affordable prices. Two decades of experience with HMO's has taught us Newt was wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with the concept of HMOs. But increasingly, they are having difficulty providing both affordable health insurance and good care.
So Bush and the current Republican congress said to themselves, "86 the withering, Medicare will have to be hacked to death, if the way is to be cleared for privitizing the program. Their "term" for this process is "modernizing" Medicare, bringing it into the twenty-first century.
That is what underlies their willingness to engage on the subject of controlling subscription medicine costs, and adding a prescription benefit to Medicare. In the Spring, the Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy agreed to a compromise on the issue of the prescription benefit, as long as the nature of Medicare was preserved. The Senate bill Democrats approved wasn't a good one from their perspective, but as Kennedy said, the party could not in good conscience refuse the needed benefit, but Democrats made clear that if the conference went too far in the direction of the House version of the bill, that would cost their support.
No surprise, Republicans paid no attention. The operating assumption of the Bush/Rove policy here has been to produce a bill that can be sold as the long awaited prescription benefit for seniors, but that does much more, all of it bad, all of it in the direction of privitization, so that Democrats would have the noxious choice of voting yes, and giving Bush a huge win, exhibit A for his compassionate conservatism, or voting no, and being accused of playing politics.
The privitization in this bill isn't what Gingrich was talking about. This is worse. This is subsidized privitization, protected by shackling government's ability to regulate, or in this case, negotiate prices with drug companies.
Democrats are pretty firm in their opposition. My suggestion, call your own Senators and tell them to vote "no" to cloture and to the bill. Tell them it's too lousy of a bill to give Bush that big a win. And tell them their constituents see through the bill.
Biggest talking point from my perspective - Bush's inability to work with anyone who doesn't already agree with him. Bush, the uniter, not the divider, has allowed his party to exclude Democrats from any genuine input in the conference that hammered out the final bill. This is unprecendented. And don't let anyone tell you Democrats behaved the same way when they were the majority party. Tell your Senator that they cannot vote for a bill that disenfrachised you by treating your vote for a Democratic Senator as if it meant nothing. The Democrats compromised; Bush said, you patsies. As in his foreign policy, Bush seems to think that there is something wrong, read weak, in working with people who aren't already in complete agreement with you. He feels contempt for the very notion of compromise. Fine. The price for that is no bill. It's Bush's price. Not the Democrats. He can still have a bill. If he's willing to lead his party to the table where Democrats are already sitting, ready to find a genuine compromise.
One more thought; Leiberman is on the fence on the Medicare bill; he says he wants to study it. If you have the time, let him know there's nothing to be had, especially by a potential Presidential candidate, in folding on this one.
BTW, those AARP commercials that say Seniors can't wait, the first year of the benefit is 2006. So there's plenty of time before the next election to get a decent bill, and not a senior will be deprived of a single penny's worth of help with not a single prescription bill.
