The Ghost of Jesse Helms Haunts Health Care Debate
james g. keegan jr.
Friday 13 November 2009
by: Scott Galindez, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Here we go again.
Whenever conservative stalwart Jesse Helms didn't like something in a
bill, he would pull out an abortion amendment to slow things down. Helms
is dead and gone but the tactic is alive and well and may just kill
health care reform.
On the Senate side, the hurdle is the public option. For 30 years, Jesse
Helms, the former senator from North Carolina, was the biggest thorn in
the Democrats' side. Now that title goes to the senator that many call
"Traitor Joe" Lieberman.
While many Democrats were declaring victory last Saturday night with the
passage of a health care reform bill, Republicans, too, had a victory of
sorts. They may have successfully passed the "poison pill" that will
kill health care reform down the road.
One of the culprits this time was Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan). He
co-sponsored an amendment to the health care bill with Rep. Joe Pitts
(R-Pennsylvania). The amendment would require women to buy separate
"riders" to cover abortions, even if they otherwise paid for a full
insurance plan. Even before the amendment was voted on, the Democratic
leadership was signaling that there was no reason for alarm; if the
amendment passes, it won't survive conference with the Senate was the
spin.
So, the amendment passed with the help of dozens of Democrats; later in
the night, the full bill passed 220-215. After the euphoria settled, a
stark realization set in for many supporters of health care reform. The
margin of victory was not large enough to guarantee final passage if the
bill comes back from conference without the abortion amendment. So, the
question in the House is did the Democratic leadership make a huge
blunder when they allowed the Stupak amendment a vote on the floor?
There wasn't time to see what the real impact of the Stupak amendment
will be. Groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
are cranking up efforts against the amendment. Which raises another
question: If the amendment remains in the bill, will Democrats be
pressured by their base to oppose the conference report?
Either way, with or without the abortion amendment, the bill is in
trouble. Jesse Helms would be proud of Stupak and Pitts.
While the abortion controversy could find its way down the hall to the
Senate, at this time the biggest hurdle is opposition to a "public
option." The Senate will begin debating their version of health care
reform next Tuesday, if they can muster 60 votes to authorize the start
of debate. In the Senate, you need 60 votes to start debate, and 60
votes to end debate. If even one of the 60 members of the Democratic
caucus defects, a Republican will have to join the Democrats to overcome
the procedural hurdles.
"Traitor Joe" Lieberman has threatened that he will not vote to end
debate if any form of the public option is in the bill. Lieberman has
indicated he will vote to allow the debate to begin. His opposition to
ending debate is what has the bill stalled in the Senate.
When Lieberman announced his plans to join a Republican filibuster, many
responded by saying, "Let him do it; he will look like a fool." I think
people had images in their mind of Jimmy Stewart standing on the floor
for hours bringing the Senate to a standstill. That is not how this
filibuster would work. For, as long as 41 senators vote against ending
debate, the bill cannot be brought up for a vote. The rest of the
business of the Senate would continue; only health care would be delayed.
The Republicans are united in their opposition, with the exception of
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who will only support a public option with
a "trigger."
A "trigger" means that there would only be a public option if private
insurance companies don't meet certain goals. The goals would be
deadlines for covering a certain percentage of Americans that currently
don't have health care. The problem is, initially, Americans would be
required to buy health care without an affordable public plan as an
option. We would be depending on the private insurance companies to
lower their rates without competition from a public plan. The insurance
industry has already released reports threatening to raise rates if
health care reform passes.
A health care bill without a public option would lead to a political
nightmare for Democrats.
That being said, the trigger may be the way to go to get a bill out of
the Senate. It would be a disaster if the trigger wasn't removed in
conference, but as the Democratic leadership concluded in the House when
allowing a vote on the Stupak amendment, clearing procedural hurdles now
and revisiting the language in conference may be the best way to get a
bill to the president's desk that has a public option and does not have
anti-abortion language. Nancy Pelosi gambled in the House; now Harry
Reid may have to take the same gamble in the Senate.
If these gambles are to succeed, members of Congress and the president
will need the support of the people. As President Obama said during his
campaign, he cannot do it alone. He needs the people to stand against
politics as usual in Washington. For the last year, Obama has faced an
entrenched power structure in Washington that resists change.
"Traitor Joe" and the ghost of Jesse Helms are part of that structure;
they are not going to voluntarily move aside and cede power, we have to
take it from them.
edi...@netpath.net
Post, is RACE: that most all the net winners of Obamacare would be
black or Hispanic, while most all of the net losers of it would be
white.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
james g. keegan jr.
<cda9e36c-34f8-4627...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> http://www.redstate.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
can't you find any credible sources to make your argument?
hal
>No - the ghost of Jesse Helms, already hinted openly by the Washington
>Post, is RACE: that most all the net winners of Obamacare would be
>black or Hispanic, while most all of the net losers of it would be
>white.
ah, I get it, that's why you stupid fucking rednecks are against
healthcare reform...