After the passage of healthcare reform, many people who voted for the new healthcare bill are currently under attack by those who oppose the way they chose to vote on the healthcare issue. Former Alaskan Governor and Presidential candidate Sarah Palin decided to post personal information of many pro-Obamacare senators on her personal website, www.palinforamerica.com. One of the big questions being asked in the fallout of the passage of this landmark bill is whether former Governor Palin was correct in her posting of such information. While many conservatives laud Palin's choice as a path of personal accountability, concerned progressives worry about the safety of politicians who supported the new healthcare bill (a legitimate concern, given recent partisan political activity).
Socialist advocates at the World Socialist Web Site (www.wsws.org) are criticizing the new healthcare bill as being too far-right, and top-down, showing that anger over the new system emanates from both sides of the political spectrum.
As law-abiding Americans, we can all hope that both sides will respect each other's past opinions and votes. Personal threats and terrorist activity (proposed, threatened, or real) is something that all decent citizens can, and should ardently oppose.
This morning at Northern Virginia Community College Obama signed a final piece of the health care reform bill that dealt with student loans and banks, according to the New York Times. CNN says that "It fixed an old 'sweetheart deal' by cutting out 'unnecessary middlemen' in the administration of college loans, he [Obama] asserted. 'We stood with America's students.'"
Republicans are criticizing the student loan addition as something that needs a completely separate debate (of course, we all know that Republicans have done similar things to bills in the past but being a critical hypocrite is at partisan politics' core). Conservative opposition continues building to health care reform. The Tea Party is definitely against the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is toting a new phrase "repeal and replace" regarding reform and the midterm elections.
Obama, in my opinion, even seems to be catering to his base when he said today: "The health insurance reform bill I signed won’t fix every problem in our health-care system in one fell swoop . . . But it does represent some of the toughest insurance reforms in history. It represents a major step forward toward giving Americans with insurance and those without a sense of security when it comes to their health care. It enshrines the principle that when you get sick you’ve got a society there, a community that is going to help you get back on your feet. It represents meaningful progress for the American people."
I sincerely hope that health care reform will work and improve our failing health care system. In my home state New Mexico, my senators, Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman seem hopeful that this reform will help the over 400,000 New Mexicans living without health insurance. However, partisan politics threatens this new legislation and I don't know what we can do to minimize it's effect on this newborn bill.
It was recently announced that thirteen attorney generals, led by the AG from Florida, will file suit to attempt to overthrow the recently signed health care bill.
At least in my home state of Washington it has been interesting to see a heated debate emerge between our conservative attorney general Rob McKenna, and our liberal governor Christine Gregoire, who has threatened him with legal action if he continues to participate in this suit.
According to the suit, the bill violates:
-Article I of the Constitution (powers given to Congress) and the 10th amendment by mandating coverage, and by creating what they see as a direct tax, which are not allowed. -10th amendment by making Medicare mandatory and excluding state say in the matter
Will this suit be successful? The general consensus among experts is "no". For one, the Supreme Court has previously upheld the Commerce Clause of the Constitution numerous times before in recent, which allows Congress to regulate interstate business and commerce. According to the Dean of the UC Irvine Law School, Dr. Ewin Chemerinsky,““there is no case law, post 1937, that would support an individual’s right not to buy health care if the government wants to mandate it...and if the court stays true to its Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the last 15 years, I think [the health care bill] will be upheld.”
The suit also claims that the mandate involves a direct tax. The direct tax rules are fairly complicated, but from what I understand there are many more regulations to direct taxes that would somewhat invalidate the bill. The mandate is actually an excise tax, which is a tax on events so to speak. Congress can raise taxes as long as it is proves it is for general welfare, and it is generally seen that this would be proven.
Yet according to Randy Barnett of the Washington Post, the bill more or less requires that citizens enter into a contract with the private government just by being alive, which is unprecedented.
It seems very unlikely that the Supreme Court would overturn the biggest Democratic legislative victory in 30+ years, and it's not common (has it even ever happened?) that they would strike down such an important and partisan bill. But as Randy Barnett recalls, Bush v. Gore, a high profile and highly partisan case (probably the highest profile possible) was decided by five justices. The conservative majority in the Supreme Court still stands. Even though they're supposed to be nonpartisan, I can't help but feel that a general conservative vs. liberal outlook on life could affect their decision.
I said that I would focus on health care reform and women; now that health care reform has reached the Senate for reconciliation, I have some feminist objections.
But first, good things in health care reform that help women's reproductive rights: --contraceptives are covered under a package with required basic benefits that include maternity care and preventative care, such as mammograms --more women have access to family planning --limits on gender and age rating
OBJECTIONS: --no public option --the Nelson Compromise severely restricts women's right to choose: federal money will only go to abortions in the case of rape, incest, or fatal danger to the mother's health. Those who want an abortion option in their health care plan have to pay two different payments. Also, states can choose to not have abortion covered if they pass a law restricting their Insurance Exchange from including plans that offer abortion coverage.
What Women's Rights Organizations are Saying: "[W]omen were forced to pay a price. Abortion was the only medical procedure singled out with punitive restrictions. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment"--Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation
"The legislation includes an onerous provision that requires Americans to write two separate checks if the insurance plan they choose includes abortion coverage. This unacceptable bureaucratic stigmatization could cause insurance carriers to drop abortion coverage, even though more than 85 percent of private plans currently cover this care for women."--Nancy Keenan, NARAL Pro-choice America
Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan has until very recently been the leader of a group of anti-abortion Democrats opposing the health care bill. They worried the bill would allow federal funding for abortions beyond the current limits of cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. However Obama attempted to calm Stupak and anti-abortion Dems by promising to issue an executive order that will solidify federal funding towards abortion. It worked; Stupak flipped sides and to the dismay (and anger) of House Republicans he not only voted for the passing of the bill but spoke against a Rebublican motion after to send the bill back to committee to amend its abortion language. The speech earned him a shout of "baby killer!" from an unidentified GOP house member(see video). This unruliness was perhaps justified; Stupak and the other half dozen like-minded Dems extremely late change in support were crucial in passing the bill, evident with the very tight victory. Many Republicans believe he "let them down." Either way with the outburst it is clear the abortion debate has wormed its way securely into the bill, even after its passage. It will be interesting to see if Obama follows through on his promises of an executive order! Baby Killer Video
For now, the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)... TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.
That is how the entire rest of the developed world operates, as noted yesterday. It is the way the United States operates in most realms other than health coverage. Of course all older people are eligible for Medicare. Of course all drivers must have auto insurance. Of course all children must have a public school they can attend. Etc. Such "of course" rules offer protection for individuals but even more important, they reduce the overall costs to society, compared with one in which extreme risks are uncontained. The simplest proof is, again, Medicare: Does anyone think American life would be better now, on an individual or a collective level, if we were in an environment in which older people might have to beg for treatment as charity cases when they ran out of cash? And in which everyone had to spend the preceding years worried about that fate?
The vote for a preceding procedural measure was 224 to 206 in the House, which is a positive indication that the Dems will get the numbers they need. Barring some ridiculous circumstance or a last minute change of heart this bill should pass.It should only be a matter of minutes now.
According to a new report from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, the number of uninsured residents in California increased by more than 2 million (or 28%) in just the two years between 2007 and 2009. This means that one quarter of all adults in California don't even have basic health coverage.
These numbers are staggering. The number of people who lost insurance in California in two years is about equivalent to the population of the entire state of New Mexico or West Virginia losing their insurance. And with the economy still relatively stagnant, the situation isn't looking great for those who rely on their employers for health coverage (most people).
Also on the subject of statistics, I love this image by Jake Lewis (and not just because I'm a sucker for good design):
These staggering numbers just make me consider how urgent this really is. Conservative strategist Ralph Reed, when he visited campus this week, advised that the best strategy for Obama would be to scrap this bill and start over, moving through each separate part on its own. Maybe in a perfect world, but I don't think we have that kind of time.
UPDATE 3/18:
Barack Obama just posted this video, which expands on my thoughts.
Today in class we talked about the Republican takeover of Congress back in 1994. So I thought it would be a good idea to take a look back at the events surrounding President Clinton's healthcare proposal, and the similarities and differences between the situation back then and the events going on in Washington today.
After taking office in 1993, President Clinton set up a Task Force on National Healthcare Reform, chaired by his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The task force and the Clinton administration came up with a plan to require all Americans to be covered by a health insurance plan. Under the proposed plan, employers would have been required to provide health insurance to their employees, and people under a certain income level would have been automatically covered.
The backlash against the proposed plan was strong. Conservatives and the healthcare industry strongly opposed the plan, while many Democrats came up with competing proposals, muddying the waters. In the end, the contentious battle facilitated massive Republican victories in the 1994 election, leading to Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.
So what's the parallel today? Although the current proposed healthcare plan isn't nearly as extensive as the Clinton plan was, it has sparked a lot of controversy among conservatives (and between liberals) in Washington. Many conservatives predict that the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts is the "writing on the wall" for Republican victories in the 2010 election, while liberals generally believe that passing reform will garner further support for the Democrats.
In the end, we'll have to wait until November to see whose right.
With our in-class discussion of the "Framing" technique used commonly in current politics, its no surprise that headlines everywhere regard this week as "Do-or-Die," "Make or Break" and the "Fight to the Finish" for Obama's healthcare reform plan. It's looking like the health care reform initiative is going to be passed via a Reconciliation bill that will make the changes demanded by the house. With a reconciliation bill, only 51 senate votes are required for it to pass. David Axelrod, Obama's top adviser, stated on NBC that with this strategy he is "absolutely confident [Obama's plan] is going to be successful."
President Obama has taken it upon himself in this final stretch to call democratic hold-outs who oppose the bill with the argument that should the bill fail to pass it will be detrimental to his re-election in November. Obama must be feeling the heat of this "Do-or-Die" week because he has postponed his trip to Asia from March 18th to March 21st because of the healthcare vote. He intends to spend his extra time here humanizing the debate, and presenting the public with stories that indicate the urgency of healthcare reform. Today in Strongsville, Ohio President Obama explained that he was there promoting healthcare reform "because of the countless others who have been forced to face the hardest and most terrifying challenges in their lives with the added burden of medical bills they cannot pay."
This week will show an Obama who's fired up about Health Care reform and will speak out as the final push approaches. The true question is, what will come of his efforts? And is this truly the final push? Is it really make or break? Only time will tell.
President Obama addressed the nation today on the issue of health care reform today. He endorsed using the congressional process of reconciliation to pass the bill through, while calling on Democrats to stand strong in the coming weeks. Reconciliation is a tactic used to pass bills with a simple majority. Instead of needing 60 votes (with 59 Democrats in the Senate), the Democrats would only need 51 votes.
I know what you're thinking..."We only needed 50 votes this whole time?! This is awesome!" (or the opposite, of course). Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple? After the House Bill is passed, both bills enter reconciliation. They then can only include fiscal budget measures, and amendments deemed relevant to the bill. Debate is limited to 20 hours. Both houses vote on the second bill and must approve it by a simple majority.
This seems like a logical option, but the Democrats have a lot riding on it. The fall midterm elections are only eight months away. According to Mitch McConnell (R-KY), “They’re making a vigorous effort to try to jam this down the throats of the American people, who don’t want it”. If they pass the bill through reconciliation, there could be a large Republican backlash. If they don't pass the bill, there will be a large liberal backlash.
I guess someone's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
P.S: does anyone else think it's creepy that everyone in the audience was wearing lab coats? I know they were doctors. But still...
Apologies for the lateness of this post. According to channelnewsasia.com, President Obama has suggested implementing four Republican ideas in the new health care plan. The ideas include:
1. A proposal by Republican Senator Tom Coburn (a doctor) meant to prevent insurance fraud.
2. Reimburse Medicaid doctors.
3. Additional funding towards malpractice reform.
4. Expansion of health care savings accounts that would allow people to save their own money for healthcare.
Although some Republican congressmen are skeptical, President Obama hopes that the inclusion of some Republican ideals will encourage politicians on both sides of the aisle to support the bill.
White House photo, Pete Souza