Procedural Rules Backfire on Republicans

Sen. Sanders (I-VT) stepped to the Senate floor yesterday to offer an amendment (http://www.c-span.com/pdf/sanders_amend_2837.pdf) to establish a single-payer system for the United States. Typically when an amendment or a bill is offered the reading is waived. Not on this occasion. Sen. Coburn (R-OK) objected to the waiving of the reading thus the Senate Clerk started reading the amendment. After an hour of reading the amendment the clerk was only on page 25 of 366 (per the pdf above even though it was reported that the bill was over 750 pages). It was not until about 2:30 p.m. CST that Sen. Sanders came back to the floor and withdrew his amendment.

During his close, which is afforded every author the opportunity to make a final plea, Sen. Sanders turned the table on the Republicans by making a motion to table the Hutchison/Thune amendment. The Hutchison/Thune amendment (http://www.c-span.com/pdf/hutchison_motion.pdf) was a one page amendment that would have returned the Senate health care reform bill back to the Finance Committee to align the taxes and fees established with the start of provisions within the Senate Health Care Reform Bill. The motion made by Sen. Sanders to table the amendment, officially killing the amendment, passed 56-41. The turnabout is that Sen. Sanders, after watching his amendment reading waiver objection, snuck in the motion to table prior to finishing his close. The move is not something normally done during Senate rules; rather it was a Democrat response to a parliamentary procedure enlisted by the Republicans to slow down the debate on health care.

While it was comical to watch, the latter move by the Democrats were a bit more devious in the respect to sabotage a bipartisan effort for health care reform. Now, I wish the Senator from Vermont had not withdrawn his amendment as the debate on a single-payer system, I think is important, would have taken place. I am assuming that Sen. Sanders had posted his amendment on his webpage three days prior to it coming to the floor. I do acknowledge that the move by Sen. Coburn was a stall tactic but at the same time our current Congress has a recent track record of reading what they vote on. The debate will rage on today and the Republicans will continue to use procedural rules to delay the vote on the health care bill. Is it right? Is it bad politics?

The question at hand is what type of reform still remains with the stripping out of the public option and the expansion of Medicare? President Obama promised on the campaign trail that the health care reform debate would be held on C-SPAN and nothing would be done behind closed doors. In fact, just the opposite it taking place with the White House deals with PHARMA, AARP, and deals within the Democrat ranks. While many will tire of the procedural gimmicks to delay vote on health care, I am willing to wait for a bill that does reform a system in desperate need of reform. As for the Hutchison/Thune amendment that was the sacrificial lamb in the procedural rule game does raise a valid concern: Why are we all going to be taxed for four years before "reform" is implemented?

Opt-Out is a Cop-Out

For weeks leading up to the Senate Finance vote on the Baucus Bill – that still has not been given Legislative language (thus not a bill) – the White House and leading Democrats courted the vote of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who is fighting for his political future, announced Monday that the merged bill in the Senate will have an "opt-out" public option. The very type of option that Olympia Snowe and Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats are dead set against having as an option. The move by Sen. Reid may put him in the crosshairs of the White House as the Obama Administration has used a lot of political capital to make health care reform appear to be bi-partisan.

President Obama has been campaigning and fundraising for a number of Democrats embattled for political life in the past weeks. Will the move by Sen. Reid put his biggest political chip in jeopardy by putting in a public option? Only time will tell. Having an "Opt-Out" option will negate a slew of lawsuits, well that is if State's get a backbone, as forcing States to offer further expansion of Medicare is an affront on State Rights. As I have said before in previous blog entries, health care reform is needed to curb the escalating premiums and bring cost savings within the industry itself.

The goal of President Obama is to reduce costs and increase competition. The trouble with the public option is that it does neither. To increase competition, open the borders of the states to allow insurance companies to offer coverage across state lines. Roughly 1600 insurance options exist within the borders of the United States yet the majority of states have between 2 and 5 options. Looking to Economics 101 for an answer is required. Economics 101 sales, provided the price is at equilibrium, an increase in supply, while keeping demand the same, the price will drop. So, why are that so many politicians disregard this model of Economics?

The other goal is to reduce cost. Doctors must carry expensive insurance to shield themselves from lawsuits. The malpractice insurance does not discriminate. Surgeons, specialists, and family practioneers all must carry it to protect themselves. Tort reform is required. Without Tort reform doctors will need to earn more and more money to cover the cost of malpractice insurance. So, why doesn't the Democrat led Congress include Tort reform within their health care reform platform?

We can create legislation that will not cost $.01 but Congress lacks the courage to do so while achieving the goals of health care reform. So, why doesn't Congress do it?

Health Care Reform delay is symptom of larger political problem

The Senate Finance Committee will vote on Chairman Max Baucus bill today. The Baucus Bill is to cost $856B, protect nearly 29M uninsured over the next decade while trimming the federal deficit by $49B over the next decade per the Congressional Budget Office. Under the Baucus Bill all Americans will be mandated to have "qualified health insurance coverage by 2013" (Baucus Bill). All Americans will either purchase private insurance or public insurance through the exchange. Why wait until 2013? Why not start with months of passage?

Currently all Federal employees use an exchange to purchase their own insurance. If that system works so well then let's open up the doors for the rest of America. People on both side of the conversation are frustrated at the delays that are taking place to pass reform. The big question is being missed here. Neither side of the argument wants to enact true reform because they will upset either their base or the donors they rely on to fill the re-election coffers.

The Founding Fathers warned of the dangers of political parties. President George Washington said during his final "farewell" address in 1796 (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/elections_campaigning/news.php?q=1208746351):

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It wasn't until when Adams and Jefferson ran against each other that the political party formation saw its birth. The lobbying that is going on Capitol Hill, on an array of topics, is a symptom of a bigger illness. The illness is the manner in which America elects their officials. It is not just on the National level either. Evidence can be seen in the Governor Race already in full gear in the state of Minnesota. Even though the election is not until 2010, many Democrats and Republicans have thrown their name in the hat to gain their party nomination. Why? Reform is needed now. Last Presidential election cycle we saw an insane amount of money raised by Sen. Obama and his opponent Sen. McCain.

Government has grown. It is through that growth that people have and continue to see Government as "Big Business". Nearly all election cycles in my lifetime, with few exceptions, have seen only two viable candidates. By viable I mean a candidate that has one of the two mainstream political machines behind them. Having only two viable options has established a prevailing thought at the polling booth of "choosing between the lesser of two evils." Granted Minnesota did see Jesse Ventura shock the mainstream parties by winning the Governorship of Minnesota but that was a rare situation. People like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have attempted to break the strangle hold the Democrats and Republicans enjoy.

It is time for Congress to establish shorter election cycles and make room for others to join the fray. The type of reform required is to limit the campaign cycle to four months. No longer will candidates be required fundraise because all elections will be public and public funds will be used. On the National scene, the candidates will no longer be voted as a package. The top two vote getters will become President and Vice President regardless of "party" affiliation which is how our Founding Fathers had it. All candidates will participate in a series of public debates. Then in November citizens of the United States will vote as they have done for years.

Making reform to the process of electing political figures will assist our Government as our elected representatives will no longer have to fundraise and can concentrate on doing the job they are elected to do. This way we will no longer have to read "Democrats, who have traditionally depended on trial lawyers for political donations, have also shied away from protecting doctors form frivolous lawsuits if they adhere to safety standards and treatment protocols" (The Boston Globe). Or "Republicans hope linking House Speaker to Democrats can turn centrist districts" (Wall Street Journal). At the end of the day our government grows larger, our freedoms eroded, our ability to "throw the bums out" is in the hands of PAC's, and the vision of Founding Fathers is becoming a distant memory.

Public Option fails twice

The Senate Finance Committee heard two different amendments yesterday that both called for a public option. Sen. Rockefeller's amendment fell failed to win majority support with Sen. Baucus (D-MT), Sen. Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Nelson (D-FL), Den. Carper (D-DE), and Sen. Lincoln (D-AR) joining the Republicans on the committee in voting 15 to 8 to reject the amendment. The other public option bill was offered by Sen. Schumer (D-NY) that was also rejected, 13 to 10, with Sen. Baucus (D-MT), Sen. Conrad (D-ND), and Sen. Lincoln (D-AR) joining Republicans in opposition. The main difference between the two proposed amendments was Sen. Rockefeller's bill set rates for the first two years at Medicare rates and then negotiated them afterwards where Sen. Schumer's amendment established rates by negotiating right away with doctors and hospitals.

During the debate on both bills the Democrats seeking a public option raised the point of competition and believes that a public option is the only method to ensure "fair" competition. The trouble I see with this logic is the government cannot establish a "fair" playing field if they are player and regulator. Sen. Grassley (R-IA) concurs with, "Government is not a fair competitor. It's a predator." Naturally the premiums of a public option will be less due to the lack of overhead but the missing element is funding. With low cost, premiums, option to people and businesses, we will see more opt for such an option thus increasing the amount of funding required to sustain. The new required funds will either come from higher taxes or premiums. Either way it will not be good for Americans and ultimately not achieve the goal of driving down health care costs.

If Democrats are serious about competition, I hate to sound like a broken record, then all for interstate health care insurance programs to exist. As I said yesterday, during the debate the Democrats referenced a chart that displayed the monopoly and oligopoly that many insurers experience in the vast majority, over 70%, of the states. So, to eliminate the monopolies and oligopolies currently instituted is best accomplished by opening up competition between states. Adding just one more option, public option or CO-OP, will not achieve the necessary additional competitive forces required to drive down premiums. Why does Econ 101 come into the minds of Congress? Perhaps it is because the vast majority of them are lawyers and have not worked in the private sector.

Sen. Rockefeller frustration boiled over, during the conversation with his amendment, when he pleaded that, "the public option will be optional. It will be voluntary. It will be affordable to people who are now helpless before their insurance companies." The trouble Sen. Rockefeller is that it will not be optional in the long run as companies will discover it is cheaper to kick in the penalty than to offer insurance benefits. Plus, a mandate that stipulates that all citizens of the United States must have health insurance eliminates the voluntary aspect of any option let alone the public option.

Although Sen. Baucus voted against both amendments he did say, "There's a lot to like about a public option." I do not see anything to like about the public option. The public option will only grow the size of government and enable lazy Americans that feel government is the answer. In addition, the public option will not breed competition which I have clearly stated above. Why do we, as Americans, continue to allow such an argument to be made? Someone please show me how adding a public option increases competition!!!!!! If no one can, please join me in requesting all in the debate on health care to remove this argument that a public option will increase competition.

Public Option does not increase competition required to lower costs

Today the Senate Finance Committee will be debating several amendments that contain a public option. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), while debating Sen. Rockefeller's (D-WV) public option amendment, stated that the only way to achieve competition in health care is to institute a public option. During the debate the liberal Democrats referenced a chart that showed that competition does not exist right now as health care insurance companies, roughly 75%, hold a monopoly or an oligopoly in the states they operate. I agree that more competition is required to drive down cost. Where I differ, as do moderate Democrats and the majority of Republicans, the public option does not foster competition. Before my progressive friends "jump the shark", hear me out.
The trouble with the logic of a public option leading to competition is that adding just ONE additional plan does not break the oligopoly. If you have two plans offered and add one more plan, how does that increase competition? Yes it does offer another option but an oligopoly still exists. To break out of the monopoly or oligopoly trend across America, in regards to health care insurance, needs more than just one option. That being said, why are liberal Democrats lack the understanding on how to breed competition? To create the competition, as I said in what I'd suggest for health care reform, is to open the state borders.
Allow everyone in the United States to purchase health care insurance from any state in our nation will create the competition that is required for drive down the cost of health care premiums. The public option will lead to less competition. Now the public option will not act like a light switch to the private insurance programs; rather it will act as a dimmer switch. After the public option is established and running, American's will lose their current insurance program.
Democrats floated the notion that the Mayo Clinic came out in favor of a public option that is similar to Medicare. This claim was false, http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/09/23/mayo-clinics-position-on-the-public-option/, as the Mayo Clinic blog states, "If the "public plan" means a government-run, price-controlled, Medicare-like insurance model, we do not support it because it has been shown over many years that such a model has not controlled costs and had punished doctors, hospitals and others that provide high-quality, affordable care." Just a few days ago the Mayo Clinic reported, in the Star Tribune, which lost over $730M is medical costs of Medicare patients. Now, where does a hospital/clinic, like the Mayo Clinic, going to make up the lost revenues? It falls on the shoulders of those with non-government run insurance.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mi) just claimed that, per the CBO, only 25% of those without insurance right now would opt into the public option. The popular of given of those uninsured is 48M people. Based on Sen. Stabenow, per the CBO, we are looking at 12M people. In a system that already offers health care for, roughly, 178M people how will we be able to ensure "real competition and choice" as Sen. Stabenow just said when it only affects 6.7% of the market? Any ration person understands that adding 7% to anything is not creating competition or big enough of anything to mix the overall pot. If the ultimate goal is to offer choice and to reduce cost of premiums to Americans then Congress needs to move in the direction of doing so by making health care insurance available interstate. By going interstate it will increase commerce as states like Iowa, as Democrats claim, has only 1 insurance option will be able to purchase insurance in other states and it will allow health care insurance providers to enter into more markets.

Sen. Bunning’s Transparency Amendment a delay tactic?

I have been watching the Senate Finance Committee meetings over the past few days and it has been very entertaining. Sen. Baucus is getting his time in the spotlight and is making the most of it. Much of the amendment voting has gone along party lines. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-NY) issued an amendment on Wednesday that would have required that a final and complete cost analysis be completed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In addition to making the CBO analysis public the amendment would require the Senate Finance Committee to post the final bill for 72 hours prior to voting on it. Sen. Bunning defended his amendment by saying, "This bill will affect every American and I think it is our duty to provide full disclosure of all the facts. I don't see anything wrong with the committee taking a few extra weeks to ensure we get this right and so that all members of Congress and the public are given the opportunity to read the language and know what the true cost is."

Sen. Bunning's amendment makes sense. A similar bill was offered in the House that would have required members of the House of Representatives to wait 72 hours to ensure everyone had an opportunity to read any bill prior to passage. Why are Democrats in such a hurry to pass legislation that will have far reaching affects? Everyone agrees that health care reform is needed and as the president has said, 80% of the reform is agreed upon it is just the final 20% that is in question. While President Obama has championed transparency then why the Senate Finance Committee, and the rest of Congress doesn't, not adopt a 72 hour "reading" period prior to passing any legislation.

In respect to the Bunning amendment, Sen. John Kerry (D-Ma) claimed the amendment, "fundamentally a delay tactic". Where is this delay tactic? If the bill is complete and ready for vote, why not allow the CBO to score the bill and allow the public to see the bill? In order for the CBO to properly score any bill they require full legislative language to be completed. Sen. Snowe (R-Me), the only real hope on the Finance Committee for bipartisan action, was visibly frustrated during the debate of the Bunning amendment. "I don't understand the resistance," said Sen. Snowe. She went on to question, "What is the rush? Is there something happening in two weeks that we cannot wait?"

Sen. Baucus rush is to get a bill to the floor of the Senate before October 15^th when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (D-Nv) warned that reconciliation will be considered if major progress has not be made. If Sen. Reed is serious in using a procedural move, meant for budget issues, to complete passage of health care reform, that is the rush or the "happening" that Sen. Snowe is inquiring about. It is time for Congress to put aside partisan politics and procedural moves and enact true reform that includes choice, drives down cost, and includes tort reform. Unfortunately none of the bills being discussed does all of this.

Baucus Bill increases taxes on all Americans

Today the Senate Finance committee will start their overhaul of the Baucus bill. At last report there are 500 plus amendments proposed to the bill. One of the hot button items in the Baucus bill to be discussing the 35% excise tax on insurers "Cadillac plans" they offer. The "Cadillac plan" is defined as policies with a yearly premium cost of $8000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. The excise tax is expected to generate $215B over 10 years. Michael Tanner, a health policy analyst at the Cato Institute, warns, "They're assuming that everybody's going to keep offering and buying these Cadillac plans. A 35% tax is huge" (Los Angeles Times). President Obama and other Democrats have chimed the 20% gross margin that insurance companies enjoy and it is time for them to share the wealth. Are we naïve to believe that insurance companies will not pass along the 35% excise tax among all the plans they offer thus "taxing" low and middle class by increasing premiums on non-Cadillac plans.

There is optimism behind the Baucus bill as it moves the conversation forward. "While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation, which is budget neutral and reduces future health care costs," says a statement signed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5937). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does acknowledge the plan does reduce the federal deficit in the long term through revenue generated from the excise tax on "Cadillac plans" and savings in the Medicare program.

What if the revenue from the "Cadillac plans" does not materialize? Historically speaking when taxes are raised, i.e. capital gains, the government realizes less revenue. In the case of health care, the excise tax may see the elimination of "Cadillac plans" and an increase in premiums of lesser plans to spread the tax. The increase premium is essentially a tax on Americans. Many will argue that premiums will increase regardless if nothing is done. I agree with that statement but let's not make it worse. We all agree something needs to be done to reduce premiums and other costs within the system. But to place an excise tax on plans that insurance companies are offering does nothing but raise potential revenue for the government while not lowering costs.

During his one-on-one conversation with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama was pressed that having a health care mandate on Americans is essentially a tax. The president responded that it is "not true" that mandating individuals obtain health care is a tax, but as Politico.com pointed out that the president is wrong. The Politico points out that on page 29 of the Baucus bill states "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax" and mentions later in the bill "The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed." Is it okay now to call the president a "Liar"? The H.R. 3200 bill also calls for a tax "on individuals without acceptable health care coverage". Both bills would violate President Obama's campaign promise that no one making less than $250,000 will see their taxes raised by one cent.

President Obama, in his conversation with Stephanopoulos, rebutted on the excise tax and mandate tax that "the first thing we've got to understand is you've got what is effectively a tax increase taking place on American families right now. The Kaiser Family Foundation report just came out last week. Health Care premiums went up 5.5 percent last year, at a time when the rest of the economy, inflation was actually negative. So that is a huge bite out of people's pockets." True premiums have increased and will continue to increase if nothing is done but none of the bill in Congress assist in stabilizing cost let alone driving them downward. To drive costs down we need competition. The public option and/or the Co-Op option do nothing to increase competition. To really increase competition is to open the borders of the states and allow people from one area of the country to purchase health care coverage from other areas of the country.

Instead the government feels mandating that all citizens obtain coverage along with the public option and/or Co-Ops is the answer. They are dead wrong. The mandate is a tax even though the president fails to realize that. George Stephanopoulos asked President Obama "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" To which the president responded with "Well, hold on a second, George. Here – here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average –our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on." Stephanopoulos continued to press the tax issue by breaking out the Merriam Webster's Dictionary to define tax which ticked off the president. In the end President Obama said that "I absolutely reject that notion" in reference the mandate of health care coverage is a tax even though it states it both the Baucus bill and H.R. 3200.

Now that being said will President Obama sign a bill of similar fashion after his pledge not to increase taxes on those making less than $250,000. The rest of the week will be focused on the Senate Finance Committee. It will be interesting to see how the political games are played and what the Baucus bill looks like afterwards. Many say that the health care reform is not an easy task; yet I contend certain aspects are. Why doesn't Congress not act on those aspects?