I love to debate, but I'm not huge on rhetoric. Or platitudes. I am not going to make an emotional appeal(unless you consider pointing out that No Bill will result in 45,000 deaths per year an emotional appeal).
What I am going to do is lay down the parameters for a fair debate using logic, argumentation, refutation, and facts. In order to do so I am going to have to take a two-tiered approach.
Before I get to why I am going to have to utilize a two-tiered approach I would like to first frame this debate as a debate against two main factions:
Those who want the House to just pass the Senate Bill ASAP
And
Those who want the House to pressure the Senate to fix the bill by threatening to vote against the bill/and those who are actually against the Senate bill and would rather see no bill if they can't get it fixed the way they want.
If you disagree with my characterization of either side, please let me know and I will try to craft a more fair characterization. I want this to be a fair debate.
I believe the House should just hurry up and pass the Senate bill ASAP. In order to support my argument I will have to take a two-tiered approach.
First, I will have to show that we will not be able to get any fixes we want through reconciliation and that crafting a new bill is a terrible idea. I will also show that the longer we wait to just pass the Senate bill, the worse our election chances will be in November.
Now, the reason I feel it necessary to adopt a two tier approach is b/c I have noticed a pattern. It seems that many of the folks who support a reconciliation strategy are also of the mindset that we would be worse off having passed the Senate Bill than if we were to pass no bill at all. Often, when I convince somebody that their reconciliation strategy, is impractical, not really possible/would result in a worse bill than the Senate Bill, and/or is really bad politics, they will retort: "Well then we just need to kill this"Abortion of a Senate Bill".
So. Second, I will show that passing the Senate Bill would be many times better than passing no bill.
And, now . . .on with the show!
________________________________________________________________________
I will begin this argument by attacking the idea put forth by others that we should be pushing for Reconciliation as a strategy. I have a few main points of refutation.
1. Read this article by Nate Silver. Read it now. Don't come back until you have at least a pretty good idea of what his argument is. Don't worry, I'll wait for you . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .Okay, did you get all that? It's a pretty complicated argument, I know. Reconciliation is a very complicated process. The important thing to keep in mind here with this point of refutation is that even if we were able to get fifty votes for reconciliation(which we're not, as I will show in my second point), we would end up with a worse bill than the Senate Bill because many parts of it cannot be passed through reconciliation because of the Byrd rule. Sure, we could maybe(not really, though) get the public option. But we'd lose many important parts of the bill. This is the perfect example of a Pyrrhic victory.
Also, look at this list via Nate Silver of things in the Senate bill that cannot be passed through reconciliation. We can clearly see, upon comparison, that the Senate Bill is actually better than just about any compromise that has even the slightest of chances of being hammered out through reconciliation.
2. We cannot garner 50 votes in the Senate for the changes we want.
2A. If you can count up fifty Senators who you think might vote for the reconciliation bill you want, I'm willing to have that discussion. But I don't think you can.
2B. Here's 20 Senators from the Dem caucus I can almost guarantee you will vote against the reconciliation bill you want.
Joe Lieberman
Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
Mark Begich
Thomas Carper
Kent Conrad
Byron Dorgan
Russell Feingold
Robert Byrd
Kay Hagan
Daniel Inouye
Tim Johnson
Mary Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Claire McCaskill
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor
Jon Tester
Mark Warner
Jim Webb
2C. There you have it. Unless you can convince these unconvinceables, or win over some Republicans, the reconciliation strategy is impossible.
3. Crafting a new bill is a terrible idea.
3A. We wouldn't be able to fully craft a new bill(i.e, get it through all the committees, push it through the senate, etcetera) before November elections. We are likely to lose seats in both houses in November. If we lose seats before passing hcr, we will no longer have the ability to pass hcr. Simple logic, really. It's either the current Senate bill, plus whatever fixes we can make to it after it has passed through the house, or nothing for at least another 16 years.
4. The longer we wait to pass Health Care Reform, the worse off our chances will be in November.
4A. Polling shows that independents will support Dems by a larger margin if hcr passes and will support Republicans by a larger margin if it fails.
4B. It is a rather simple logical argument, asespousedby David Plouffe.
We still have much to do before November, and time is running short. Every race has unique characteristics, but there are a few general things that Democrats can do to strengthen our hand.
Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)
4C. Don't take my word for it. Listen to what the other side thinks. If hcr does not pass, it will be the Democrats' waterloo.
________________________________________________________________________
If all has gone well, I have hopefully convinced you that reconciliation is either impossible, or antithetical to the goals you wish to accomplish. If so, we can now move on to my second main argument. Passing the Senate bill is Waaaaaay better than passing no bill.
1. 45,000 deaths per year(see intro).
"Failure to enact health reform will result in increasing numbers of people without health insurance because fewer employers will offer it and many employees will not be able to pay the cost of plans that are available," predicts Stephen Zuckerman, a health economist at Washington's Urban Institute think tank
- Even MORE bankruptcies and home foreclosures as a result of medical bills. And this is on top of a number of medical bankruptcies due to medical bills that is already staggeringly high.
- Many people will not be able to get coverage AT ALL because they have "pre-existing conditions". Of those who do, they will pay premiums for years. One day, when they do get sick, their provider will drop them, citing a "pre-existing condition" such as a cold they caught in 1982, or an "i" they forgot to dot in their 1978 insurance application.
4. The swelling Federal budget!
The numbers are so large they're hard to grasp. The U.S. health-care tab in 2009 was $2.5 trillion, equal to 17.3% of the nation's gross domestic product, the sum of all its output, much bigger than 2008's 16.2% because the recession depressed GDP. The economy will grow again, of course, but health-care costs will rise even faster. In a new forecast, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services predict that without some big change, health care will amount to 19.3% of GDP by 2019.
5. The Senate bill requires coverage of preventative care!
6. The National Health Care Exchange!!
________________________________________________________________________
Okay. So now you have all seen my two-tiered argument in support of passing the damn bill. I'd like to leave you with this letter, which has been signed by 51 Health Policy Experts who are imploring the House to pass the Senate Bill and fix it afterward through reconciliation.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Rangel, Waxman, and Miller:
For nearly three-quarters of a century, Presidents and Congressional leaders have tried to enact legislation that would make health care accessible to Americans. Although pieces of this dream have been realized—health care for the elderly, the disabled, and children in low-income families—universal coverage itself has proved beyond reach.
We are now on the cusp of realizing this goal. Both houses of Congress have adopted legislation that would provide health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, begin to control health care costs that seriously threaten our economy, and improve the quality of health care for every American. These bills are imperfect. Yet they represent a huge step forward in creating a more humane, effective, and sustainable health care system for every American.
We have come further than we have ever come before. Only two steps remain. The House must adopt the Senate bill, and the President must sign it.
While the House and Senate bills differ on specific points, they are built on the same framework and common elements—eliminating health status underwriting and insurance abuses, creating functioning insurance markets, offering affordability credits to those who cannot afford health insurance, requiring that all Americans act responsibly and purchase health insurance if they are able to do so, expanding Medicaid to cover all poor Americans, reforming Medicare payment to encourage quality and control costs, strengthening the primary care workforce, and encouraging prevention and wellness.
Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process. Key elements of this repair enjoy broad support in both houses. Other limitations of the Senate bill can be addressed through other means.
The Senate bill accomplishes most of what both houses of Congress set out to do; it would largely realize the goals many Americans across the political spectrum espouse in achieving near universal coverage and real delivery reform.
With the loss of Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat, Democrats no longer enjoy a filibuster-proof Senate majority, though they still enjoy the largest Senate majority any party has achieved in the past generation. The loss of this one vote does not require Congress or the President to abandon Senator Kennedy’s life work of health care reform. A year of political infighting, misleading debates about death panels and socialized medicine, and sheer inaction has left Americans exhausted, confused, and disgruntled. Americans are also bearing the severe consequences of deep recession and unemployment. Still, a majority of Americans support the elements of the Senate bill.
The House of Representatives faces a stark choice. It can enact the Senate bill, and realize the century-old dream of health care reform. By doing so, it can achieve a historic milestone while freeing itself to address other national problems such as joblessness and mortgage foreclosure that affect millions of Americans. Differences between the House and Senate bill can be negotiated through the reconciliation process.
Alternatively, Congress can abandon this effort at this critical moment, leaving millions more Americans to become uninsured in the coming years as health care becomes ever less affordable. Abandoning health care reform—the signature political issue of this administration—would send a message that Democrats are incapable of governing and lead to massive losses in the 2010 election, possibly even in 2012. Such a retreat would also abandon the chance to achieve reforms that millions of Americans across the political spectrum desperately need in these difficult times. Now is the moment for calm and resolute leadership, pressing on toward the goal now within sight.
Some have proposed dividing the bill or starting anew with negotiations to produce a less comprehensive bill. From the perspective of both politics and policy, we do not believe this is a feasible option. We doubt that the American public would welcome more months of partisan wrangling and debate. We doubt that the final product would match what has already been achieved. Indeed we doubt that any bill would reach the President’s desk should congressional leaders pursue this misguided course.
We, the signatories of this letter, come from a variety of different perspectives. Some of us are long-standing advocates of progressive causes. Some of us are nonpartisan or identify as political moderates.
From these differing perspectives, we agree on one thing: the current choice is clear. Pass the Senate bill, and improve it through reconciliation.