Some Thoughts On the Word “Filibuster”

As I noted in the post below, the media seems to be turning “reconciliation” into an ugly word.

But “filibuster” is the word with a more unsavory history. (Thanks to HeathBeat reader Barry Carroll who sent me a link to the history of the word.)

“Filibuster” finds its root in the Spanish word “filibustero,” which means “pirate.” The filibuster was originally seen as an opportunity to “pirate” or “hijack” a debate.

In modern American history the filibuster became infamous as a tool used to block civil rights legislation.  This tradition goes all the way back to 1946 when Southern Senators blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Democrat Dennis Chavez of New Mexico that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration.

In 1957 Senator  Strom Thurmond (then D-SC, later R-SC)) set a record by filibustering the  Civil Rights Act of 1957  for more than  24 hours. Ultimately, the bill passed. In the 1960s southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

Since then the use of filibusters has accelerated. In December of 2009, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, made this statement on the floor of the Senate :  “We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year. Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War, was such a thing ever seen in this body."

I wonder—has there has been any time since the Civil War when this country was as polarized as it is now? The division has taken place gradually, over nearly three decades, so that it has come to seem almost natural.  But last week’s Summit on Health Care dramatized just how wide the gap between liberals and conservatives has become. It is not just a matter of what some call “ideology” or "politics."  It is a difference in very basic values.

Comments

[Maggie Mahar]

Richard K, NG,

Richard K--

Thanks much for calling attention to the fact that the bill has been "cleaned up"--most commentators are ignoring this.

On the VAT tax, Congress hasn't addressed the issue, but I would point out that for most of the past 25 years, Congress has been dominated by conservatives--and over time, they have become hard-line conservatives.

A VAT tax taxes wealth. (Very wealthy people who have more discretionary money to spend wind up paying higher taxes. This is particuarly true of wealthy people who are retired and have no earned income, but very high investment income.)

Conservatives believe in protecting the rights of individuals to accumulate, preserve and hand down great wealth-- creating the extraordinarily wealthy families (such as the Bush family) that then have great political power.

Wealthy people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet disagree with this philosophy. Rather than trying to consolidate wealth within one family, they are trying to help others in the world. But they are not hard-line consevatives.

Going forward, I don't think that conservatives will manage to dominate the Congress for the next 25 years.

We are now reaping the results of their philosphophy-- the country is ready for a pendulum swing, much like the pendulum swing that we saw when FDR came to office.

This is why I see a VAT tax in our future.

And, as you know, the VAT that Zeke Emmanuel and Victor Fuchs recommend would NOT BE REGRESSIVE. Because it is tied to health care, middle-class and lower-income families would reap benefit that are worth far more than the taxes they pay.

Meanwhile, the very wealthy would be able to control how much they had to pay in taxes by deciding how much they want to spend.

A VAT discourages unncessary consumption of over-priced or basically worthless consumer goods (that 20th pair of $150 -$400 shoes.)

NG-- I didn't mean to say that " keeping the Senate rules and makeup as is would be better than major changes."

I just said that we're not likely to have a constitutional amendement on this issue.

(See the history of how many years it takes to get a constitutional amendement--on anything. And the percentage that have failed. There are many more small and medium-sized states than there are large states. The small and medium-sized states would vote against it.)

It's possible that the Senate could decide to change its own rules and get rid of the filibuster, but legal/constitutional scholars disagree as to whether they could do this , even if they had the votes.

Given these facts, getting out voters who don't vote now--and using reconciliation-- seem the best alternatives.

[NG]

Maggie,

You said that keeping the Senate rules and makeup as is would be better than major changes because:

1. Most big states are split about the same as the rest of the country, and

2. What would happen when the conservatives take control.

Well the fact that today, large states may be evenly split does not mean they will always be that way. If we do not systematically account for large population segments, then there will come a time when the current Senate rules will neutralize the potential vast majority.

As for worrying about when conservatives take over, is it better to have broken government never doing anything worthwhile and holding the BROKEN status quo forever just so one side does not gain any advantage?

[Maggie Mahar]

Robert--

The four-year term limit is an interesting idea.

But it also means that progressives would never be able to build the power to make real changes in this country.

(Here, i'm thinking of people like LBJ on domestic policy.Aalso if Jay Rockefeller had been limited to a 4-year term from West Virgina, he never would have been able to have the impact that he
has had on health care reform.)

And Nancy Pelosi needed many years to get to the point where she is now-- as House Speaker.

People in the black Caucus need long terms in order to the poinet where they might become committee chairmen (women).

Longer terms reward very hard-working, persistent people who belive in something.

With a 4-year limit, Ted Kennedy never would have accomplished anything in Congress.

There is much to be said for gving people like Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Kand Carl Levin a chance to build
great staffs --this takes time.

[Maggie Mahar]

NG--

I agree with you about the problems, but not so much about the solutions.

First, changing the two senators per state rule would require a constitutional amendment.

Given the number of "state's rights" people in this country (and the money behind them) I suspect that would require a liberal military coup. (Doesn't seem likely in the near future.)

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly-- California is not filled with well-educated progressives.

Consider who the people of California have elected as their governor.

How long has it been since California had a progressive governor?

Let's say California had 12 senators instead of 2.

Perhpas 6 would represent intelligent progressives (and I would say that's a real stretch), their votes in the Senate would be canceled out by 6 senators who reperesent wealthy Californians (the people who elected Reagan governor) and clueless Californians (the people who elected Cal's current governor.)

New York is the third biggest state by population. Here, the upstate conservative vote cancels out NYC's more liberal vote. (Upstate is not that different form Nebraska--trust me, I grew up there.) Again, consider who we have elected as governor in recent years.
Probably 6 conservative Senators cancel out the votes of 6 liberal Senators-- and that's if NYC is given as many senators as the rest of the state.

Next consider Texas (2nd most populous state.) We don't even want to think about 12 senators from Texas. We wind up with one progressive from Austin and 10 if not 11 conservatives . . .

Next Florida-- at best, 6 conservatives cancel out 6 liberals.

Pennsylvania-- Here you may have a better chance of liberal senators outnumbering conservatives. (This state is tricky) But again, the history of recent governors is not encouraging.

Bottom line: if we gave very large states more senators, we might get more variety in the SEnate (At least one conservative Cuban senator from Florida, a couple of colorful but clueless Senators from California, and more scarey Senators from Texas.)

You are right that small, sparsely populated states have an inordinate amount of power in the Senate, but I'm not at all sure that giving large states would give us more educated progressives.

And there are some progressive small states: Vermont; Hawaii; Rhode Island? (I may be wrong-- don't know that much about politics there); West Virginia (have consistently elected Jay Rockefeller) CT (among the smallest 25--a history of some very liberal politicians) Oregon (among smalest 25 (a split sate, but liberals like Kitzhaber . . ), New Mexico (is likely to become more liberal as time goes on. . ) Maine-- two female senators, both Republicans, but neither a frothing at the mouth conservatives.

Bottom line: I think the media has made too much of the idea that "small states" represent conservatives while "large states" represent liberals.

Much of the media lives in New York or California. They are thinking of themselves and their friends. But they and their friens are not typical of the citizens of their states.

When it comes to filibusters: if the Senate eliminated the filibuster,
conservatives would be able to pass some extreme legislation with 51 votes. (We have to recognize that at some point in the near or medium-term, conservatives will re-take Washington. The history of politics in the U.S. is a history of pendulum swings.)

Finally, in the case of heatlhcare it looks as if "reconciliation" is going to prove a successful solution
to the filibuster threat to health care reform.

I think we should work on explaining to the American people while "reconilizaiton" is peferectly fair, and expand the types of legislation that could use reconciliation.

[NG]

Maggie wrote:

"I would like to see progressives reflect and appeal to a larger spectrum of this country, but I think they must do this through political "movements" which set out to "move minds from where they are now to where they could be"--i.e.
by educating the public."
---------------
Thanks for the reply to my post concerning the Senate's non-population proportional power. However, this discussion may well be becoming a bit circular because the educational tasks progressives face is almost impossible again because of the Senate's non-population proportional makeup and its 60% rules. If 38 million educated progressives lived in Ca, it would only take less than a million populists in one of several small populated states to neutralize those 2 CA Senate votes. Special interest know that by just concentrating on the populist in many small population states, they only have to reach 40 votes to shut down everything progressives want to do. AGAIN, the 19 smallest states population-wise are needed to add their population together to equal that of CA, but they get 38 votes to CA's two!! If the government is by the people and for the people, we must stop this power distortion given to the small population states, many of which are bastions of the populist beliefs you just wrote about. Throw in the 60% rule and some other ridiculous Senate rules, and the task to overcome obstructionism and status quo maintenance is just too great. I believe it does far more harm to this country going forward than it prevents.

[Maggie Mahar]

NG--

I agree that the SEnate is not as representative as it should be.

One relatively easy fix is to make D.C. a state.

Immediately, you gain 2 Senators, probably black, which beings to address the fact that the Senate does not reflect the diversity of the population.

When the founding fathers created the House and Senate the idea was that the House would be closer to "the people" while the Senate would put a brake on legilsation that reflected something that was temporarily popular with the general public-- but that people hadn't thought through.

(For instance, the McCarthyism of the early 1950s.)

Populism as a political movement does tend to reflect the thoughts of general public but in this country this has meant an uneducated public. So populism also reflects the prejudices of the public. (Populism was an agrarian movement which represnted the views of farmers in the Great Plains.)

Jack Balkin compares and contrasts "populism" and "progressivism":
"Populism has historically been suspicious of elites -- whether academic, social, or political -- and their claims to expertise and superior judgment. It has been especially skeptical of factual expertise . . ."

This anti-intellectual strain has made populists suspicious of liberal academics who use facts and evidence to try to explain positions. (Al Gore on global warming, for instance. )

Populists also have been against teaching evolution in the schools.

Many were opposed to entering WW II. (Populists tend to be isoltationists. You can see that in the House today-- an extraordinary number of representatives don't have a passport--they have never been outside the U.S. This limits their understanding of foreing policy--or the fact that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily want to be like us.

Populists are suspicious of the corporation-- and from a progressive point of view, this is good.

But they are also suspicious of government and govenrment and government interfering in their lives or their local culture. (Thus many popullists supported segregation and opposed the Civil Rights movement.)

When comparing populists and progressives Balkin writes: "progressivism has stood for good government and enlightened public policy in the public interest. Central to progressivism is a faith that educated and civilized individuals can, through the use of reason, determine what is best for society as a whole. Persuasion, discussion, and rational dialogue can lead individuals of different views to see what is in the public interest. Government and public participation must therefore be structured so as to produce rational deliberation and consensus about important public policy issues. Popular culture and popular will have a role to play in this process, but only after sufficient education and only after their more passionate elements have been diverted and diffused. Popular anger and uneducated public sentiments are more likely to lead to hasty and irrational judgments."

As an example of "hasty and irrational judgements" today many populists would saya that insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny insurance to people with pre-existing conditions--but that they are against the individual mandate requiring that everyone have insurance."
(If you think about it, you can't have one without the other. But populism is less impressed by rationl argument, more likely to be driven by strong emotions.)

Balkan continues: "Like populists, progressives believe that governments must be freed of corrupting influences. But these corrupting influences are described quite differently: They include narrowness of vision, ignorance, and parochial self-interest. Government must be freed of corruption so that it can wisely debate what is truly in the public interest. Progressivism is less concerned than populism about centralization and concentration of power. It recognizes that some problems require centralized authority and that some enterprises benefit from economies of scale.(31) Progressivism also has a significantly different attitude towards expertise: Far from being something to be distrusted, it is something to be particularly prized. Expertise is necessary to arrive at sound policy judgments; conversely, its lack often leads ordinary citizens to misunderstand the issues and make choices that are not in the public interest. Because of its respect for expertise, progressivism has always been quite comfortable with elite discourse, and progressivism is the natural home for reformers who are members of political, academic, and social elites." (You'll find Balkin here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/popprog1.htm

Progressives like Martin Luther King set out to educate the people; populists like Hughey Long played on the ignorance of the people.

I would like to see progressives reflect and appeal to a larger spectrum of this country, but I think they must do this through political "movements" which set out to "move minds from where they are now to where they could be"--i.e.
by educating the public.

(This is Marshall Ganz' defintion of a political movement.)

[Robert]

"I wonder—has there has been any time since the Civil War when this country was as polarized as it is now? The division has taken place gradually, over nearly three decades, so that it has come to seem almost natural. But last week’s Summit on Health Care dramatized just how wide the gap between liberals and conservatives has become. It is not just a matter of what some call “ideology” or "politics." It is a difference in very basic values."

As Plato explains, when "statesmen" who run the country are replaced by "politicians," the state is under control of those who do not wish to SERVE but wish to ADVANCE their personal causes. I say we place a 4-year term limit on EVERYBODY in politics, from senators to representatives. This makes it a far less appealing profession for those who wish to hijack the American political system.

[NG]

Maggie wrote:

"But to populists the "common man" is white-- and Christian."
----------------
Think about how or if this can ever change. If a REAL populist vote had the power, then it WOULD be able to change EVENTUALLY through proper population-proportional elections. However if all the "white-- and Christians" stay in smaller states while the "others" maybe take over the majority by 2 or 3 fold (eventually) but are in only a few larger states, then the racism and misdistribution of power stays as is. It is the CURRENT Senate rules and non-population-proportional power makeup that lead to the maintenance of a distorted and racist system. Was it always meant to be that way????

Think about this carefully, please. What do we really want this country's power to be determined by??

[Richard K. MD]

"I agree about Emmanuel's plan. It's not going to happen at this point in time because it depends on a VAT tax, and we're not going to introduce a new tax in the middle of a recession."--MM
I think you gave Congress too much credit in this comment. They wouldn't have passed a VAT in good times either (note that they didn't in spite of the obvious need for revenues during good times). As another fan of Zeke Emanuel's general plan, I had hoped from Jan 20, 2009 that his plan would be passed with an immediate start to the medical part, but with an appropriate delay (two years, perhaps) in the tax part. That would have contributed to jobs without the drag of a new tax during a recession.
Here's hoping that the Democratic House members who voted for the health reform bill the first time around keep their nerve and vote for the already-passed Senate bill.
Then the Republican Senators can have no legitimate gripe about passing a major bill without the 60 vote majority.
Then I dare the minority in the Senate to vote against a clean-up bill that includes a repeal of the Cornhusker deal and the Louisiana purchase, et al. Make my day!

[Maggie Mahar]

Margalit--

You are certainly right about anti-semiticism in France. A long, ugly history.

But when it comes to new immigrants who aren't Jewish--including Arabs-- the French tend to be surprisingly tolerant of anyone who is willing to "become French" (assimilate) As long as they don't wear head-dresses etc., France is much more accepting than the U.S.

The U.S. has a problem with extending healthcare to immigrants--including legal immigarnts.

Germany has many immigrants. My step-son's wife comes from a family that immigrated to Germany from Turkey. He is American.
They lived in Germany for about 10 years and received excellent health care--no "disparitites"- -they even had a child in Germany--geat care.

They have both lived here and both know how immigrants (particularly immigrants who don't look like most Americans) are treated here.

Finally, you write: "I must admit, I don't have any recollection of such vituperative right wing attacks on a liberal President."

First of all, we haven't had a truly liberal president in many, many years.

Secondly, do you remember the attacks on Jimmy Carter?

Or the attack on LBJ when he committed to civil rights?

I think that Bill Clinton wanted to be a liberal president, but the conservatives used his many and very foolish sexual exploits to push him back.

Then they hung him over his personal life.

[Margalit Gur-Arie]

Maggie,

I'm thrilled you found the "L" :-)

As to racism, this country has a much different history than the Europeans, and much more recent too. All that said, racism is right under the surface over there as well. I know folks of North African descent that live in France. They are plenty racist and antisemitic in France.

It's funny how conservatives always attack the liberal press and now liberals complain about the conservative press. I must admit, I don't have any recollection of such vituperative right wing attacks on a liberal President. It all hangs together. We need to grow up.

[Maggie Mahar]

Margalit--

First, let me apologize for consistently mis-spelling your name. I just saw the "l" in the middle.

I agree about Emmanuel's plan. It's not going to happen at this point in time because it depends on a VAT tax, and we're not going to introduce a new tax in the middle of a recession.

But it is the most rational plan, and I still think that at some point down the road, once we have established something approximating universal coverage, we might well move to a version of the Emmanuel/Fuchs plan. (I told Emmanuel that in an e-mail about a year ago. As I recall, his response was something like "Really?"

You write: "I guess I'm a bit more optimistic regarding the American people, or maybe I have lower expectations to start with.
The rich have always exploited the poor as much as possible, and there was always disdain towards those with no property to speak of, even from men who were the pillars of our Democracy.
Racism has been around for hundreds of years. Equal rights is rather recent and there are people alive that remember segregation. It will take another generation or two to get where we want to be.
Sensationalist press always does well and it doesn't really need much substance to attract readers and viewers, and radical conservatives are doing a very effective job at disparaging this administration."

I agree with what you say. But I think I'm more outraged by the rich exploiting the poor, racism, and the sensationalist press.

It really doesn't have to be this way. Today, in 2010, there are countries where the rich don't exploit the poor (Sweden, Denmark, Norway.) And the rich are not allowed to exploit the poor to nearly the same extent in France, Germany, SWitzerland, even Italy.)

As for racism-- in some Latin American countries, inter-racial marriages are completely accepted (the babies are considered more beautiful than the babies of single-race marriages. Like Eurasians, they are seen as exotic--more interesting-looking.

Also, in Sweden, and, to a fair degree, in France, Africans and African-Americans have been accepted for decades.

Even when it comes to the press, while the U.K. has an over-the-top tabloid press, and many other European countries have a sensationalist media, they also have papers and even television news networks that stand up and tell the truth: about weapons of mass distruction and the war in Iraq (even if the country was sending troops to help us in Iraq); about financial corruption (this was particularly true in the 1990s when newspapers in other countries were warning people that we were building a world-wide finacial bubble); and about corruption in govt leadership. Newspapers in many other countires seem to feel freer to be very critical of the "establishment" and the people in charge.'

In the U.S. the media was so easy on George W. Bush --and the Supreme Court when it voted him into office-- it was just extraordinary.

It's as if the media here fears that the government will fall apart if reporters dare to ask the hard questions and tell the truth.

[Margalit Gur-Arie]

Maggie,

First and foremost I have no fondness fore the Wyden-Benett proposal. I just used it as an example of cooperation. I am with Dr. Emanuel when it comes to a comprehensive solution.

I guess I'm a bit more optimistic regarding the American people, or maybe I have lower expectations to start with.
The rich have always exploited the poor as much as possible, and there was always disdain towards those with no property to speak of, even from men who were the pillars of our Democracy.
Racism has been around for hundreds of years. Equal rights is rather recent and there are people alive that remember segregation. It will take another generation or two to get where we want to be.
Sensationalist press always does well and it doesn't really need much substance to attract readers and viewers, and radical conservatives are doing a very effective job at disparaging this administration. I really don't think it makes much difference what is in this President's proposals. They will be opposed. Strongly and dismissively.

I would like to address the Senate issue, though. The historical reasons for having a bicameral legislation are largely not there any more. While the Senate/House arrangement served its purpose of providing resolution for equitable States representation and a balance between the voice of the people and the voice of "those better fit to govern", I really don't see any purpose for its existence anymore.

[Maggie Mahar]

NG--

Throughout U.S. history, populists claim to represent the "common man" standing up to the elite.

But to populists the "common man" is white-- and Christian.

Populism has long been associated with racism and anti-semitism. See Hughey Long and Father Couglin.

Populism is also associated with corruption. See Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men.

Some would argue that populism is also associated with educating the (white) poor--though, populisms' defenders acknowledge, populism was undoubtedly racist. . .

As if that can be overlooked.

[NG]

Magie wrote:

"But I would hate to see a populist House and a populist President making the laws. . . "
--------
Why would you hate such a thing? Ultimately it is a populist action that elects even Senators, except that the resultant Senators from small states wield far more power per vote received than senators from larger states.

[Maggie Mahar]

NG, Dr. Val, Tom

Ng--I agree that we need some structural change.

Filibusters have become far too frequent and make it difficult to get anything done.

I suspect that filibuster rules may be changed in the years ahead.

Changing the number of Senators per state to reflect population would be very, very difficut. All of hte small states would, of course, vote against it.

Though I agree, such a change would better reflect the diversity of the country.

As for letting the President and the House pass legislation without the Senate-- no, there are reasons that we have two chambers.

Also, traditionally Senate members have been more liberal and better educated than the House.
This, of course, does not mean that they are wiser or more honest.

But I would hate to see a populist House and a populist President making the laws. . .

Dr. Val--
Good to hear from you, but there seem to be words missing in your post. . .I can't quite understand what you're saying.

Tom--
Yes,I agree this is a war between Democracy and unfettered capitalism.

Or, another way to put it: it is a war between those who believe in solidarity equality (which would mean that everyone has a right to high quality health care ) and those who believe that individual freedom is the essential American value (which includes the freedom to earn and preserve as much wealth as possible with being free from resonsiblities to society (i.e. taxes.)

Of course, equality and individual liberty are both American values, but liberals put more emphasis on equality, conservatives put more emphasis on individual liberty.

[Maggie Mahar]

Margait--

Margait--

You're absolutely right that most people don't know what is in the President's plan or the Senate plan and so if you ask them whether they support either plan, their answers are not terribly meaningful.

But you look at polls that only ask whether they are for or against covering everyone, or that ask whether or not they favor a "major overhaul" of the health care system, you
find that people with higher incomes tend to be opposed, while people with lower incomes favor reform.

Those with higher incomes like the status quo. Under the status quo, they're doing pretty well.

Republicans also favor the status quo and are far more likely to be against any "reform" while Democrats are likely to favor an overhaul

But income is the most important factor pollsters like Amy Walker (you may have seen her on Rachel Madoff) point out.

Wealthier people-- earning over $60,000 or so, tend to have health insurance that they think is pretty good. In that income bracket, their employer pays for 85% to 100% of the premium. They fear change because they fear that they will lose something that they have now, and they fear that they will wind up having to help pay for people who are now uninsured.

Wealthier people are also more likely to vote (and to make campaign contributions) so politicians are more likely to be concerned about their views.

AT the Summit, both Democrats and Republicans made one thing clear: Democrats want to cover 30 million people. Republicans want to cover 3 million--and they definitely Do Not want to try to cover 30 million.

That is a huge, philosophical difference. And the Republicans have made it clear that they will Never vote for a plan that tries to cover 30 million uninsured.

I agree that there is a "new invisible hand that is very much interested in maintaining the status quo and is investing fortunes in lobbying and creating political and social havoc for pure financial benefit of the very few."

(Though I would add that it's not that new. This has been going on since at least 1980--and you saw the nation's attitude toward the poor and the working class begin to change during the "Me Decade"--the 1970s. Then came the "Greed Decade"-- the 1980s.)

And I would add that, as the polls show, income and "values" are closely linked. Even people in the upper-middle-class-- who are not truly wealthy (say earning $60,000 to $75,000) are opposed to tax increases on the very wealthy to help fund health care for the poor and lower-middle-class. Those upper-middle-class people identify with the wealthy--they hope that someday, they will be wealthy, and they think that the poor should take greater responsiblity for themslves and "make do" with less adequate healthcare if that is all that they can afford.

Those who have more are less likely to want to share. (This of course is not true of all wealthy people. Many are generous. Look at Warren Buffet. But he is unusual.)

And if we have reform,some upper-middle-class people will, in fact, have to give something up. I don't think health reform will involve taxing the middle-class or the upper-middle-clas, but if we are going to cover everyone, we will have to reduce waste.

This means that middle-class and upper-middle-class people won't be able to get every test or treatment that they (or even their doctor) might think they need.

More and more doctors and hosptials will be working in groups where evidence-based medicine will become more dominant. Individual doctors will be following guidelines (not rules) as they do at Mayo, the VA and Kaiser-- they won't be making decisions about "best practice" on their own.
Patients who are accustomed to being over-treated may well feel that they are losing something. It will take a long, long time for the American public to being to realize that more care is not necessarily better care . . .

As for the Wyden-Bennet proposal, see my reply to Dr. David under "What Reformers Are Up Against."

Some conservatives favor the Wyden plan because it shifts the cost of dealing with health care inflation to individuals-- and low-income and middle-income families who would find themsleves in real trouble in a few years.

The subsidies for the poor and the tax deduction for the rest of us will not rise as quickly as health care inflation.

Republicans like this because it means that wealthy tax payers won't have to worry about tax hikes to keep up with health care inflation . Under the Wyden plan subsidies for the poor would rise only 1/5 as fast as inflation.

The poor themslevs would have to pick up the other 4/5.

This is the basic structural problem with Wyden/Bennet-- it shifts all risk to the individual family. Neither the employer nor the government intervene to try to bring down costs, negotiate for discounts, or elminate waste. The consumer is left on his own --in a market (thehealthcare market) where the "consumer" is someone who is sick, often in pain, sometimes afaid often old.

How will low income peopole afford paying for 4/5 of health care inflatin? Only by picking plans with high deductibles--plans that they then cannot afford to use.

This is not "universal coverage"--it provides only the appearance of universal coverage.

As the Center for POlicy and Budget Priorities points out:
"Under the plan, there is a substantial risk that instead of the private health insurance plans in the state-based purchasing pools competing solely on the basis of cost and quality, they would compete in significant part on the basis of which plans could best attract healthy individuals and discourage enrollment by people in poor health. Some adverse selection likely would result, with healthy individuals choosing low-cost health insurance plans, like high-deductible plans . . "http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=674.

Moreover, the Center observes: "Finally, the Wyden-Bennett plan is designed in such a way that the health benefits the insurance plans would cover, as well as some of the subsidies to help people purchase health insurance, would erode each year, with the erosion likely to become substantial over time. These features of the plan lower its overall cost and constrain growth in health care spending. They help permit the plan to be roughly budget-neutral by 2014, according to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. But they also would likely have some adverse side-effects. For low- and moderate-income people in particular, the steady erosion in the benefits packages and the subsidies could result over time in such individuals being enrolled in health insurance plans with significant and growing gaps in coverage that these individuals could not afford to fill."

In addition, Mediciad and SCHIP would be rolled into the private insurance plan, and the Center says that many children and low-income people woudl find that Medicaid and Schip no longer provided needed care.

The Wyden Bennet bill could be fixed, teh Center suggets, if it "increased subsidies for low-income families and establisihed caps on out-of-pocket paymemnts."

But if it did that "These steps to ensure affordability would add to the legislation’s costs and would likely require additional revenues beyond the existing financing sources the Wyden-Bennett plan now taps."

At that point, the Wyden-Bennett bill loses support form teh Republicans. They like it because it costs the rich nothing. They also like it because it does't attempt to rein in doctors' fees or hospital fees or the cost of drugs.

Many of the wealthy are shareholders who own drug stocks. They also don't want to see hospital reimbursements or doctors fees cut becuase they fear that this would interfere with the very high level of service that they believe they are getting at places like Cedars Sinai in Beverly Hills.

They also don't like any regulation or government intervention which might suggest that any American shouldn't be free to make $800,000--or two million--even if they do it by gouging the sick.

As to whether there are good, patriotic and righteous people of all political stripes, I agree.

But sadly, there are also many Americans who have bought into the notion that "greed is good" and that in the U.S. it's "every man for himself "(and his or her family.) Moreover, there is still much racism in America as well as disdain for the poor.

Consider Fox's ratings--and some of the things said on Fox ranging from outright lies to racial slurs.

Who do you think is keeping Fox's ratings so high? Candadians?

I am afraid those are fellow citizens.

[Tom]

Margalit, I agree with you. Ideology is one thing, but the issues we're seeing today transcend ideological differences.
I don't think the "hand" is invisible however. The influence of special interests is blatant and shameless.
I suspect, from a broader view, that what we're seeing is a war - which I believe was inevitable - between Democracy and unbridled, unrestrained Capitalism.
I'm always amazed that so many Americans seem to think that the two concepts are synonymous. They are not, and never have been. Even many of the Founders understood that.

[Dr. Val]

It's fearful this situation we cannot give importance to something as inappropriate, we have many important things to be treated as health care, cancer, AIDS, chronic diseases, in findrxonline indicate that there are thousands of people who suffer from them and are much more important than a bishop who prostituted themselves online, do not think so?

[NG]

Today, Democracy itself is being threatened and we as a country and as a people have to wake up and see it for what it really is, before it's too late.

Posted by: Margalit Gur-Arie
----------
As I have said frequently, we cannot have 38 million people in CA alone only getting 2 votes in the Senate while 38 million people combined amount the 19 smallest populated states together get 38 votes in the Senate. If the Senate had only advisory powers, then fine. However the senate has absolute power to stop any legislation with no veto type override available to the House and presidency together like the Congress has over the Presidency now. Throw in the 60% rule, and very small minorities can wield huge power only vast majorities in this system.

Three ideas to make it better in increasing order of complexity and effect:

--Get rid of the filibuster rule so simple majorities can pass legislation in the Senate

--Make Senate makeup democratically proportion to population in each state

--Allow the presidency and the House together to pass legislation without the Senate

[Margalit Gur-Arie]

I disagree, Maggie.

I think the country is being manipulated into an appearance of polarization.
If you think about it, the Tea people and other conservatives are protesting things that do not exist and were never proposed: a Communist takeover of health care, complete with death panels and general redistribution of wealth.

I watched the Summit as well and my immediate impression was that there were no insurmountable differences in substance or ideology. It was frustrating to hear one Republican after another asking to throw the bill out, not because the contents were unacceptable, but.... just because.
Dr. Coburn went on a long rant just to find out that almost everything he wants is already in the bill. Senator Ryan has issues with some numbers and Kantor is debating the character of regulation, not the need to have regulation. Wyden and Benett have a nice bi-partisan proposal and the President agrees with Mr. McCain that the Florida goodies are a disgrace.
It's not basic values or ideology that divide us. It's a brand new invisible hand that is very much interested in maintaining the status quo and is investing fortunes in lobbying and creating political and social havoc for pure financial benefit of the very few.
There are good patriotic and righteous people in both the liberal and conservative camps. We may disagree on religion and abortion and fiscal policies, but that has not changed since the country was founded and for the most part it made us, and our Democracy stronger.
Today, Democracy itself is being threatened and we as a country and as a people have to wake up and see it for what it really is, before it's too late.