Fixing Health Care At Last

John Walsh

With both the house and senate working on final versions of a health care bill, it seems like an idea whose time may finally have come. In my humble opinion it has truly been a national scandal that 48 million of our fellow citizens are without insurance and millions more are severely underinsured. The one million bankruptcies they experience throughout the course of each year because of their inability to pay medical costs accrued because of serious illnesses is clearly the result of such neglect for the health and welfare of the people.
It seems that the bills being worked on fall short of providing universal access to health insurance, but the final product will reduce the ranks of the uninsured significantly. Why won't the finished product clean up the mess entirely, you may ask? Probably because politics is always the art of the possible in practice, so what will emerge will be the best possible bill given the politics of now. But never doubt, it is still a monumental feat to get anything done on the issue. Succeeding presidents, going back to Teddy Roosevelt in 1903, have proposed a fix. Only Barack Obama in 2009 has gotten us this far. So, while it is a bit of a disappointment, it is also a triumph.
What may still derail final passage of a bill is the possibility of a filibuster in the senate. While the house can end debate on a bill with a simple majority and put it to a vote, the senate, going back to around 1810, may delay a crucial vote by trying to talk it to death. There have been some monumental efforts like that of Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who held the senate floor for over 24 hours trying to kill the voting rights act of 1964 which essentially insured the rights of black citizens to vote. There was some irony in Thurmond's effort as, many years later, he acknowledge a daughter who was the offspring of he and a black woman.
In the 1970s, the senate adopted a new rule regarding filibusters. It allowed for an end of debate called "cloture," if 60 senators, or a three-fifths majority. voted in favor. The number previously had been two-thirds or 66 senators. While it was believed that the new rule would make the passage of a bill being filibustered easier, it has sometimes had the opposite effect. Previously most filibusters ended when the senator who had initiated it and held the floor exhausted himself (They were all men, them.) and had to subside. With the new rule, cloture is easier to gain, but, failing that, a bill may be killed while the senate goes on to other things.
That is a possibility in regard to the health care regulation. if it is filibustered, it may be difficult to get the 60 votes. While the senate democrats count 60 senators one of them is Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who votes in the democratic caucus. He has vowed to vote against cloture if the final bill contains a public option for a government run health insurance plan. Since many voters in both houses are strongly in favor of such a plan, Lieberman's vow will almost surely be put too the test. That fact alone does make final passage something less than a sure thing.
As the battle to fix health care has unfolded, the issue has remained a terrible political dilemma for President Obama. It was always number one on his list of priorities as a candidate, and because of the history of failures in the past, its passage will be a major feather in his cap as we go forward. For Obama to succeed on other major issues such a global warming, fixing the broken banking and finance industry and choosing the correct path in Afghanistan, he needs a win on health care.
As Americans with a huge stake in these issues, we need a win. It would be great if a couple of republicans saw it that way too. I think we call it statesmanship!