Filibuster Abuse is the Problem, Not a Bad Bill

Re:  Kill The Bill? Some Progressives Say Nothing Is Better Than Senate Health Care Bill

Representative Alan Grayson (FL-8)

The Senate health care bill is so compromised, some progressives argue, that it would be better to try to kill it than fight for its passage.

In light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to give in to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and agree to scrap a Medicare compromise, and with the public option already off the table, many ardent supporters of health care reform are giving up on the legislation.

“Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate,” wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitas on his Twitter feed Monday night.

The Congressional Budget Office is crunching the numbers on the Senate health care bill. It would be premature to start the drumbeat for lynching the bill until we see the final version. I know that this sounds mundane, but it the bill comes back deficit neutral, as some predict, then we can make a better informed decision.

No one is more progressive on health care than I am but I am not going to stomp my feet and screech until I see what’s in the compromise and how much is costs. Doing nothing may be better than the Senate bill, but there is still the House bill to consider and the marriage of the two may put some things back that have been negotiated away.

At the progressive website Firedoglake, some still hope that the Senate will abandon Lieberman and pass reform with reconciliation.

The real problem here is the Senate’s use of the filibuster, not the fact that Reid is negotiating away all the safeguards against price caps, competition through a public option, and the option to buy into Medicare for those 55 to 64. It’s the abuse of the filibuster that is at the heart of the matter. The reconciliation process only concerns budgetary matters, and maybe, the public option. The Republicans would use secret holds and every other trick they can to stall or kill the bill even with the reconciliation. They would challenge the legality of using reconciliation in the first place.

Issues like eliminating lifetime payment caps and ending discrimination because of pre-existing conditions would have to be passed in a separate bill, which would also be obstructed with the filibuster.

Representative Alan Grayson (FL-8) said it much better than anyone. Grayson’s words from The Hill (right-wing), By Tony Romm – 11/24/09 05:25 PM ET:

“Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?” asked Grayson, who listed a series of important bills that passed with fewer than 60 votes.
“Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system,” he added. “Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Fill out the form below to sign the petition today!”

Amen. Join Grayson at StopSenateStalling.com.

____________________________________________________