Hi again -
Another myth is in need of de-bunking this year. More scare tactics by the conservative side need to be clarified. I've heard a lot of hoopla about how many seats in the House and Senate are going to be open this year. They've made it sound like the Democrats have a lot of people retiring and the Republicans have none.
The truth is that it's about even - actually the Republicans have a few more.
Right now, the Senate has 59 Democratic Seats and 41 Republican Seats.
Here's the breakdown. Let's look at Senate Seats first.
Democrats retiring in 2010 are:
Chris Dodd from Connecticut
Ted Kaufman from Delaware
Roland Burris of Illinois
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Republicans retiring in 2010 are:
George Le Mieux from Florida
Sam Brownback from Kansas
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
Kit Bond of Missouri
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
George Voinovich of Ohio
Then there are the seats up for elections this year. This makes it even as there are 13 Democratic seats and 12 Republican seats up for re-election.
Democratic Seats up for re-election in 2010 are:
Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas
Barbara Boxer from California
Michael Bennet from Colorado
Daniel Inouye from Hawaii
Barbara Mikulski from Maryland
Harry Reid from Nevada
Kirsten Gillibrand from New York
Chuck Schumer from New York
Ron Wyden from Oregon
Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania
Patrick Leahy from Vermont
Patty Murray from Washington
Russ Feingold from Wisconsin
Republican Seats up for re-election in 2010 are:
Richard Shelby from Alabama
Lisa Murkowski from Alaska
John McCain from Arizona
Johnny Isakson from Georgia
Mike Crapo from Idaho
Chuck Grassley from Iowa
David Vitter from Louisiana
Richard Burr from North Carolina
Tom Coburn from Oklahoma
Jim DeMint from South Carolina
John Thune from South Dakota
Bob Bennett from Utah
In the House currently, there are 242 Democratic Seats and 193 Republican Seats.
There are far more retirements happening in the House - 15 Democrats and 19 Republicans. 434 of the 435 Seats in the House are up for re-election in 2010.
Democrats retiring in 2010 total 15.
Artur Davis from Alabama
Marion Berry from Arkansas
Vic Snyder from Arkansas
Diane Watson from California
Kendrick Meek from Florida
Brad Ellsworth from Indiana
Dennis Moore from Kansas
Charlie Melancon from Louisiana
Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts
Paul Hodes from New Hampshire
Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania
Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island
Bart Gordon from Tennessee
John Tanner from Tennessee
Brian Baird from Washington
Republicans retiring in 2010 total 19.
John Boozman from Arkansas
John Shadegg from Arizona
George Radanovich from California
Michael Castle from Delaware
Adam Putnam from Florida
Lincoln Diaz - Balart from Florida
Mario Diaz - Balart from Florida
John Linder from Georgia
Steve Buyer from Indiana
Mark Kirk from Illinois
Jerry Moran from Kansas
Todd Tiahrt from Kansas
Peter Hoekstra from Michigan
Vern Ehlers from Michigan
Roy Blunt from Missouri
Mary Fallin from Oklahoma
Henry Brown Jr. from South Carolina
J Gresham Barrett from South Carolina
Zach Wamp from Tennessee
Now, the next question what's going to happen in November. I guess it's going to depend on who decides to go to the polls and vote and who stays home. It also depends on how inpatient we are as a whole. Do we decide to vote anti-government and anti-incumbent because we're all just so unhappy with the economy and jobs and the inaction of Congress?
I'd like to think we could all pick ourselves up by our boot straps so to speak. Let's not forget what the previous 8 years were all about. Let's not have amnesia about how bad it was. I don't know about the rest of you - but I still have hope, I still want things to change. I still think "Yes We Can." No one ever said it was going to be easy, no one ever said it would happen in a year or two - Remember! No one ever said we wouldn't have to give up anything.
I still want all those things - Health Care Reform, Climate Change Legislation, more stringent Financial Reform, Green Energy, Energy Independence and Government Transparency. Transparency sure isn't pretty - but what it does provide is insight. It allows us to see whose dirty and unethical. And it allows them to continue to try to lie, to turn tail and "retire" or quit or it allows us to vote those people out at the next election time.
So I say, let's keep moving forward, looking to the future. Let's keep fighting for change. See ya at the polls - I hope !
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Rationing of Care - Now or the Future
Hi everyone -
Just a short note to open up another facet of the Health Care Reform debate.
Are we headed for Health Care Rationing or is it already here???
As the week proceeded, I listened to more news talk shows and some of the debates happening on The Hill.
I caught some of the "interrogation" of the Health Insurance Industry in the Capitol. I found their conviction in their insurance rate hikes quite pitiful. The CEO of Wellpoint disclosed her salary - $1.1 Billion in salary, plus $80,000.00 in bonuses plus $8.5 Billion in Stock Options. She had the nerve to say the company's profit margin was ONLY 4% - well and that totaled $2.9 Billion. She said they needed to raise their premiums 39% to just break even next year - well how about taking some of those overhead costs down a bit - like the CEO's salaries or per diem rates?
So my question at the end of the week was "Aren't we already having our health care rationed?" It sure seems this way to me.
Let's talk about it a little bit.
I've heard the horror stories of the other "socialized" medicine nations - people who die while waiting on surgeries or treatments; procedures being denied, etc....
Well I think we're already doing that in our Nation - the difference is we're not calling it rationing of care. It's being hushed up - not talked about. It's known by another name. It's called "denied service" or "not medically necessary" or worse yet, give me lots of money and we'll do whatever you want.
Once again, lucky for me and my family, right now, I don't have to worry about these scenarios because I've got a great job with great medical benefits. If I want a surgery - whether it's emergent or not, all I have to do is make an appointment and have my doctors say it's OK to do because of my condition. No questions asked, not much paid out of pocket. My doctor and clinic appointment co-payments are next to nothing - $5.00 a visit. My prescriptions, the same $5.00 a piece. And I don't have to pay anything for lab work or x-rays or most procedures. I consider myself one of the lucky few. Maybe you all know someone with this kind of plan - and maybe you're lucky enough to have the same. But I don't think there are a lot of us out there today. And because of my insurance coverage, I don't dare decide that I don't like working where I do - I sure can not afford to go somewhere else.
A few years ago, 60% of families could afford their insurance premiums. Few would consider not having health insurance. Today's figures are more like 30% can afford their insurance premiums and many more are on the brink of trying to decide whether to keep their coverage or not.
Now let's take a look at just one case and tell me it isn't some sort of rationing of care. Say you've suffered from arthritis for a few years, all those years of high impact aerobics or football games in the park from our youthful years. In the morning, as each year passes, it gets harder and harder to get out of bed and more and more anti-inflammatories to get rid of the pain. Now, let's say you're only 30 years old or you're a little bit over weight.
Finally you decide to make an appointment with your doctor to see if you need some sort of joint replacement. After your initial consultation, x-rays are ordered and it's decided that you could use one but it's not an emergency. It's an elective surgery per your insurance company's guidelines. First you're only 30 and you're a little over weight. The insurance company decides they just aren't going to approve the procedure as your x-rays don't lie - your joints just aren't that bad YET. But, don't tell your pain that.
Supposedly, hip surgeries cost between $35,000.00 and $50,000.00 in the U.S. depending where you get them done.
Because you've been denied coverage for this procedure, if you want to have it done, you'll have to pay the entire amount out of your pocket. Now who can afford that? Not anyone I know. So you just won't be able to get it done now, sorry, maybe in 20 years when you're older and your x-rays confirm the pain that you've been having for years. Then your surgery will be paid for.
Isn't this rationing of care? You can't have it done unless you can afford to pay out of pocket for it - or go to another country where it's cheaper. Oh, and in Canada, it would be done - although you may have to wait a year.
Now, let's say, you already pay $1,115.00 a month for your insurance premiums - that's the average cost of an health plan for two - so let's divide it in half. So you already pay $6,690.00 a year for your coverage - which isn't even going to count because they aren't going to cover your surgery.
Let's change the scenario a little bit. Your insurance company now says they'll approve your surgery. But ......you still have co-payments and deductibles to pay. It's still an elective surgery, not emergent. So you're already paying almost $7000.00 a year in premiums. You have had your pre-op appointments and now are getting ready to set your surgery date. The hospital now tells you, you haven't met any of your deductibles for the year and you'll have a co-payment as well.
Your plan has a $3,000.00 per person deductible and a 30% co-payment. These are the types of plans you can get for $1,115.00 per month. Wow! What a plan. That's what we call affordable insurance in this Country. So let's do a little bit of math.
The hospital won't do your surgery unless you can pay the up front fees - because it's not emergent. It can wait. So you have to come up with:
Let's say your surgery is going to cost $42,000.00. That's in the middle of the guesstimate for this type of surgery.
You owe $3,000.00 up front for your deductible. You'll owe $12,600.00 for your co-payment. Again do you know anyone who can just come up with $15,600.00 out of pocket for your surgery. I sure don't.
And that's not even the whole story. You're also going to be off work for at least, at the very least 8 weeks or longer. You'll miss work. If you have vacation or sick time, you're lucky. But if not, you're out of your income as well. If you're lucky, you have short term disability coverage. Let's say you make $30,000.00 a year which is the current median income for individuals per the census figures. That's $5,000.00 you'll lose over 2 months time if you don't have paid vacation or sick time. Now, if you have short-term disability, you can recoup some of that - usually 2/3s. So you'll only lose $1,670.00 out of pocket. But wait, don't forget you'll have to pay income tax on that at the end of the year so you'll have to take $830.00 back out.
So let's do a quick tally.
So even if you have insurance and you have this type of common plan, you'll owe out of pocket....
$15,600.00 in deductibles and co-payments.
$5,000.00 in lost wages if you don't have vacation or sick time.
That's a total of $20,600.00 out of pocket when you have insurance that you're paying $7,000.00 a year for.
If you have short term disability, you'll pay......
$15,600.00 in deductibles and co-payments.
$2,500.00 in lost wages and taxes.
That's a total of $18,100.00 out of pocket when you have insurance that you're paying $7,000.00 a year for.
Now figure on top of that all of the credit card debt that you will be using too if you decide to just bite the bullet and start paying for some of this as you are really having a lot of pain. Think of the new interest rates of 20% if you're carrying balances.
And what if there are complications???
Now take the choice away - what if you have to have emergent surgery and you have these kind of deductibles and co-payments. What if you make $20,000.00 a year instead and you don't have a good job. What if you live paycheck to paycheck? I sure can see how one illness can bankrupt a family. Cant' you?
And if you're going to tell me that the hospitals will work with you on a payment plan - yes they will IF it's an emergency surgery. But they WILL NOT if it's an elective surgery. They demand their money up front or they won't even consider doing the surgery.
Now you tell me this isn't BS. Why do we even have insurance? I find this quite appalling and a bit of a mystery? What kind of Nation are we anyway? What happened to "We the People"? I guess we know the bottom line, the profitability of the insurance companies and even the hospitals and providers are much more important then the health and well being of our citizens.
It's all quite clear to me. There already is rationing. And people are suffering and dying already while waiting to get the care they need and deserve.
Bottom Line - it's here already. And even if you haven't experienced it, it doesn't mean it's not happening to some one else that you already know or may know in the future. We can only hope it never touches us and our loved ones.
Just a short note to open up another facet of the Health Care Reform debate.
Are we headed for Health Care Rationing or is it already here???
As the week proceeded, I listened to more news talk shows and some of the debates happening on The Hill.
I caught some of the "interrogation" of the Health Insurance Industry in the Capitol. I found their conviction in their insurance rate hikes quite pitiful. The CEO of Wellpoint disclosed her salary - $1.1 Billion in salary, plus $80,000.00 in bonuses plus $8.5 Billion in Stock Options. She had the nerve to say the company's profit margin was ONLY 4% - well and that totaled $2.9 Billion. She said they needed to raise their premiums 39% to just break even next year - well how about taking some of those overhead costs down a bit - like the CEO's salaries or per diem rates?
So my question at the end of the week was "Aren't we already having our health care rationed?" It sure seems this way to me.
Let's talk about it a little bit.
I've heard the horror stories of the other "socialized" medicine nations - people who die while waiting on surgeries or treatments; procedures being denied, etc....
Well I think we're already doing that in our Nation - the difference is we're not calling it rationing of care. It's being hushed up - not talked about. It's known by another name. It's called "denied service" or "not medically necessary" or worse yet, give me lots of money and we'll do whatever you want.
Once again, lucky for me and my family, right now, I don't have to worry about these scenarios because I've got a great job with great medical benefits. If I want a surgery - whether it's emergent or not, all I have to do is make an appointment and have my doctors say it's OK to do because of my condition. No questions asked, not much paid out of pocket. My doctor and clinic appointment co-payments are next to nothing - $5.00 a visit. My prescriptions, the same $5.00 a piece. And I don't have to pay anything for lab work or x-rays or most procedures. I consider myself one of the lucky few. Maybe you all know someone with this kind of plan - and maybe you're lucky enough to have the same. But I don't think there are a lot of us out there today. And because of my insurance coverage, I don't dare decide that I don't like working where I do - I sure can not afford to go somewhere else.
A few years ago, 60% of families could afford their insurance premiums. Few would consider not having health insurance. Today's figures are more like 30% can afford their insurance premiums and many more are on the brink of trying to decide whether to keep their coverage or not.
Now let's take a look at just one case and tell me it isn't some sort of rationing of care. Say you've suffered from arthritis for a few years, all those years of high impact aerobics or football games in the park from our youthful years. In the morning, as each year passes, it gets harder and harder to get out of bed and more and more anti-inflammatories to get rid of the pain. Now, let's say you're only 30 years old or you're a little bit over weight.
Finally you decide to make an appointment with your doctor to see if you need some sort of joint replacement. After your initial consultation, x-rays are ordered and it's decided that you could use one but it's not an emergency. It's an elective surgery per your insurance company's guidelines. First you're only 30 and you're a little over weight. The insurance company decides they just aren't going to approve the procedure as your x-rays don't lie - your joints just aren't that bad YET. But, don't tell your pain that.
Supposedly, hip surgeries cost between $35,000.00 and $50,000.00 in the U.S. depending where you get them done.
Because you've been denied coverage for this procedure, if you want to have it done, you'll have to pay the entire amount out of your pocket. Now who can afford that? Not anyone I know. So you just won't be able to get it done now, sorry, maybe in 20 years when you're older and your x-rays confirm the pain that you've been having for years. Then your surgery will be paid for.
Isn't this rationing of care? You can't have it done unless you can afford to pay out of pocket for it - or go to another country where it's cheaper. Oh, and in Canada, it would be done - although you may have to wait a year.
Now, let's say, you already pay $1,115.00 a month for your insurance premiums - that's the average cost of an health plan for two - so let's divide it in half. So you already pay $6,690.00 a year for your coverage - which isn't even going to count because they aren't going to cover your surgery.
Let's change the scenario a little bit. Your insurance company now says they'll approve your surgery. But ......you still have co-payments and deductibles to pay. It's still an elective surgery, not emergent. So you're already paying almost $7000.00 a year in premiums. You have had your pre-op appointments and now are getting ready to set your surgery date. The hospital now tells you, you haven't met any of your deductibles for the year and you'll have a co-payment as well.
Your plan has a $3,000.00 per person deductible and a 30% co-payment. These are the types of plans you can get for $1,115.00 per month. Wow! What a plan. That's what we call affordable insurance in this Country. So let's do a little bit of math.
The hospital won't do your surgery unless you can pay the up front fees - because it's not emergent. It can wait. So you have to come up with:
Let's say your surgery is going to cost $42,000.00. That's in the middle of the guesstimate for this type of surgery.
You owe $3,000.00 up front for your deductible. You'll owe $12,600.00 for your co-payment. Again do you know anyone who can just come up with $15,600.00 out of pocket for your surgery. I sure don't.
And that's not even the whole story. You're also going to be off work for at least, at the very least 8 weeks or longer. You'll miss work. If you have vacation or sick time, you're lucky. But if not, you're out of your income as well. If you're lucky, you have short term disability coverage. Let's say you make $30,000.00 a year which is the current median income for individuals per the census figures. That's $5,000.00 you'll lose over 2 months time if you don't have paid vacation or sick time. Now, if you have short-term disability, you can recoup some of that - usually 2/3s. So you'll only lose $1,670.00 out of pocket. But wait, don't forget you'll have to pay income tax on that at the end of the year so you'll have to take $830.00 back out.
So let's do a quick tally.
So even if you have insurance and you have this type of common plan, you'll owe out of pocket....
$15,600.00 in deductibles and co-payments.
$5,000.00 in lost wages if you don't have vacation or sick time.
That's a total of $20,600.00 out of pocket when you have insurance that you're paying $7,000.00 a year for.
If you have short term disability, you'll pay......
$15,600.00 in deductibles and co-payments.
$2,500.00 in lost wages and taxes.
That's a total of $18,100.00 out of pocket when you have insurance that you're paying $7,000.00 a year for.
Now figure on top of that all of the credit card debt that you will be using too if you decide to just bite the bullet and start paying for some of this as you are really having a lot of pain. Think of the new interest rates of 20% if you're carrying balances.
And what if there are complications???
Now take the choice away - what if you have to have emergent surgery and you have these kind of deductibles and co-payments. What if you make $20,000.00 a year instead and you don't have a good job. What if you live paycheck to paycheck? I sure can see how one illness can bankrupt a family. Cant' you?
And if you're going to tell me that the hospitals will work with you on a payment plan - yes they will IF it's an emergency surgery. But they WILL NOT if it's an elective surgery. They demand their money up front or they won't even consider doing the surgery.
Now you tell me this isn't BS. Why do we even have insurance? I find this quite appalling and a bit of a mystery? What kind of Nation are we anyway? What happened to "We the People"? I guess we know the bottom line, the profitability of the insurance companies and even the hospitals and providers are much more important then the health and well being of our citizens.
It's all quite clear to me. There already is rationing. And people are suffering and dying already while waiting to get the care they need and deserve.
Bottom Line - it's here already. And even if you haven't experienced it, it doesn't mean it's not happening to some one else that you already know or may know in the future. We can only hope it never touches us and our loved ones.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Truth as It Is - Not as It's Being Told - Reconciliation
Hi everyone -
Well today, I'm going to try to de-bunk some of these "myths" out there floating around. I'm going to talk a little bit about the Reconciliation process. If anyone wants to fact check, go ahead. I got all my information off the official House and Senate Sites - attached to the actual Bills that passed as well as the CBO site.
So let's take a look at what Reconciliation is really about, what it was originally supposedly intended to do and a couple of little tiny loopholes that sure been taken advantage of over the last 20 years.
Reconciliation was originally initiated in 1974 to allow consideration of contentious budget bills without the threat of filibusters. It's intent was to limit debate and favor the majority party. It changes existing law to bring spending, revenues or debt limit into conformity with budget resolution.
The one loophole was that it only specifies that the measures would include budgetary "changes". It did not specify whether or not these changes would be an increase or decrease in the deficit. This loophole has never been changed and I find that quite interesting as the Byrd Amendment has been amended on multiple occasions. So although I'm sure Mr. Byrd's intent was to only include items that reduce the debt (wink, wink), that's not the way it was written and it's not the way it's been used.
The second loophole is that if the Reconciliation Bill causes a budget deficit, it has to expire or get renewed in 10 years. Again, if it's intent was only to reduce the deficit, why is this little part written in as well. This is the loophole that President Bush used for the tax cuts for the rich. That's why this is such a talking point now as it's been 10 years and President Obama is not willing to renew the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the population.
And don't forget, there's a Parliamentarian whose supposed to determine what can and can not be decided by Reconciliation. This year, that would be Alan Frumin. But surprise, the Presiding Officer doesn't have to follow his recommendation. And guess who that is - Vice President Joe Biden.
So here are some statistics on reconciliation.
It was enacted in 1974.
It was first used in 1981.
17 of 23 times it was used during a Republican Presidency.
9 times, the Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate.
6 times, the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate.
1 time, the Democrats had control of the Senate and the Republicans had control of the House.
7 times, the Republicans had control of the Senate and the Democrats had control of the House.
1 time, it was used completely for a non-budgetary issue. The College Cost and Access Act of 2007 passed
with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
Health Care issues were addressed in a few of these Bills. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 was mostly Health Care Reform. Medicare and Medicaid - yes, "entitlement" programs were
addressed in many of these Bills. Here are a few of them:
1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
1985 COBRA
1987 OBRA
1989 OBRA
1990 OBRA
1993 OBRA
1995 Balanced Budge Act - This was Vetoed by President Clinton.
1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act/Welfare Reform
1997 Balanced Budget Act which Includes the Medicare Advantage Programs/Insurance Company
Give-Aways
1999 Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act - This was Vetoed by President Clinton as it increased the deficit.
2000 Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act - Again, Vetoed by President Clinton as it increased the deficit.
2005 Deficit Reduction Act
Now, the next talking point I want to talk about is the "huge majority passage" and "bi-partisan" passage of these Reconciliation Bills. The Republicans contend that all of their Reconciliation Bills passed with "huge majorities" and "bi-partisan" votes. OK, now, that's a red flag for me. Let's just go there.
I've checked the votes on these Bills on the Congressional Sites.
7 of these 23 Bills passed with less than 60 votes. OK I know that 7 out of 23 is not "all" or 100%. I also know my math - I'm thinking that would be 70% of these Bills were passed with a majority vote. Let's look at some of the numbers. These are the ones I could find easily.
1996 - H.R. 3734 which is the Welfare and Medicaid Act. This was during President Clinton's Presidency
with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed with a 78-21 vote.
53 Yeas were Republicans, 25 Yeas were Democrats. All 21 Nays were Democrats.
1997 - H.R. 2015 which is the S-CHIP Program - which by the way, is a complete "entitlement" program.
This Bill has a significant Health Care platform.
Again, still a Democratic President with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed 85-15.
43 Yeas were Republicans, 42 were Democrats. 12 Nays were Republicans, 3 were Democrats.
2001 - H.R. 1836 which was President Bush's first Tax Cut for the Wealthy. So it was a Republican President
with a Republican House and a 50-50 Split Senate. This Bill passed 58 - 33.
46 Yeas were Republicans, 12 were Democrats. 2 Nays were Republicans, 31 were Democrats.
FYI - The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that this Bill Decreased the Surplus
by 1.35 Trillion Dollars.
2003 - H.R. 2 which was President Bush's second Tax Cut for the Wealthy. So it was a Republican President
with a Republican Congress again. This Bill passed 50 - 50 with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie.
48 Yeas were Republicans, 2 were Democrats. 3 Nays were Republicans, 47 were Democrats.
FYI - The CBO predicted that this Bill Increased the Deficit by 350 Billion Dollars.
2006 - H.R. 4297 which was President Bush's third Tax Cut for the Wealthy. Again, a Republican President
with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed 54 - 44.
51 Yeas were Republicans, 3 were Democrats. 3 Nays were Republicans, 41 were Democrats.
FYI - The CBO predicted that this Bill Increased the Deficit by 70 Billion Dollars.
I also found evidence that some other Bills passed with Reconciliation with close votes but I couldn't find the Bill numbers so I couldn't verify the final votes.
I found articles that said 7 Bills passed with less than 60 votes. Again, far from the 100% that the Republicans have claimed to have had a huge majority win on.
2 of the others listed were the 1995 Balanced Budget Act with a win of 52 -47 (later vetoed) and the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act with a 50 - 50 tie with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie again - and only after they fired the Parliamentarian.
Now to me, there are some really important facts that we need to look at. These facts are not debatable - they're not open to interpretation. They are just the facts. I just don't see how any or either side or any person can put a spin on them. The facts are the facts. They are part of public record.
My first question would be:
Why would the Republicans have to have a Bill pass through Reconciliation if they had a majority vote?
Now the only reason to use Reconciliation is because of a filibuster or not having the majority vote. This means that the minority (mostly the Democrats) would have been filibustering these Bills. Therefore, I predict that they did not have a majority vote to begin with. Make sense?
Now then what comes next is a lot of back room dealing or horse trading, pork, pork, pork. So at some point, the majority (mainly the Republicans) must have been really wheeling and dealing to get these Bills through. So in the end, they brought along a few other "friends" to vote on the final Bill - either with back room deals or the amendments that were attached to these Bills. Then when the final Bills came to the floor, they ended up with a majority vote.
The other possibility could be that if the members opposed to the Bill then realized the Bill would pass with a 50% vote, some of them decided to vote for the Bill as they felt it would look good to their constituents. This in itself is reason enough that there shouldn't be anonymous votes allowed on the floor.
So there it is - the first of the de-bunking myths entries in my blog.
Off for some red carpet viewing - something almost as controversial. lol. Take Care.
Well today, I'm going to try to de-bunk some of these "myths" out there floating around. I'm going to talk a little bit about the Reconciliation process. If anyone wants to fact check, go ahead. I got all my information off the official House and Senate Sites - attached to the actual Bills that passed as well as the CBO site.
So let's take a look at what Reconciliation is really about, what it was originally supposedly intended to do and a couple of little tiny loopholes that sure been taken advantage of over the last 20 years.
Reconciliation was originally initiated in 1974 to allow consideration of contentious budget bills without the threat of filibusters. It's intent was to limit debate and favor the majority party. It changes existing law to bring spending, revenues or debt limit into conformity with budget resolution.
The one loophole was that it only specifies that the measures would include budgetary "changes". It did not specify whether or not these changes would be an increase or decrease in the deficit. This loophole has never been changed and I find that quite interesting as the Byrd Amendment has been amended on multiple occasions. So although I'm sure Mr. Byrd's intent was to only include items that reduce the debt (wink, wink), that's not the way it was written and it's not the way it's been used.
The second loophole is that if the Reconciliation Bill causes a budget deficit, it has to expire or get renewed in 10 years. Again, if it's intent was only to reduce the deficit, why is this little part written in as well. This is the loophole that President Bush used for the tax cuts for the rich. That's why this is such a talking point now as it's been 10 years and President Obama is not willing to renew the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the population.
And don't forget, there's a Parliamentarian whose supposed to determine what can and can not be decided by Reconciliation. This year, that would be Alan Frumin. But surprise, the Presiding Officer doesn't have to follow his recommendation. And guess who that is - Vice President Joe Biden.
So here are some statistics on reconciliation.
It was enacted in 1974.
It was first used in 1981.
17 of 23 times it was used during a Republican Presidency.
9 times, the Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate.
6 times, the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate.
1 time, the Democrats had control of the Senate and the Republicans had control of the House.
7 times, the Republicans had control of the Senate and the Democrats had control of the House.
1 time, it was used completely for a non-budgetary issue. The College Cost and Access Act of 2007 passed
with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
Health Care issues were addressed in a few of these Bills. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 was mostly Health Care Reform. Medicare and Medicaid - yes, "entitlement" programs were
addressed in many of these Bills. Here are a few of them:
1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
1985 COBRA
1987 OBRA
1989 OBRA
1990 OBRA
1993 OBRA
1995 Balanced Budge Act - This was Vetoed by President Clinton.
1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act/Welfare Reform
1997 Balanced Budget Act which Includes the Medicare Advantage Programs/Insurance Company
Give-Aways
1999 Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act - This was Vetoed by President Clinton as it increased the deficit.
2000 Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act - Again, Vetoed by President Clinton as it increased the deficit.
2005 Deficit Reduction Act
Now, the next talking point I want to talk about is the "huge majority passage" and "bi-partisan" passage of these Reconciliation Bills. The Republicans contend that all of their Reconciliation Bills passed with "huge majorities" and "bi-partisan" votes. OK, now, that's a red flag for me. Let's just go there.
I've checked the votes on these Bills on the Congressional Sites.
7 of these 23 Bills passed with less than 60 votes. OK I know that 7 out of 23 is not "all" or 100%. I also know my math - I'm thinking that would be 70% of these Bills were passed with a majority vote. Let's look at some of the numbers. These are the ones I could find easily.
1996 - H.R. 3734 which is the Welfare and Medicaid Act. This was during President Clinton's Presidency
with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed with a 78-21 vote.
53 Yeas were Republicans, 25 Yeas were Democrats. All 21 Nays were Democrats.
1997 - H.R. 2015 which is the S-CHIP Program - which by the way, is a complete "entitlement" program.
This Bill has a significant Health Care platform.
Again, still a Democratic President with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed 85-15.
43 Yeas were Republicans, 42 were Democrats. 12 Nays were Republicans, 3 were Democrats.
2001 - H.R. 1836 which was President Bush's first Tax Cut for the Wealthy. So it was a Republican President
with a Republican House and a 50-50 Split Senate. This Bill passed 58 - 33.
46 Yeas were Republicans, 12 were Democrats. 2 Nays were Republicans, 31 were Democrats.
FYI - The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that this Bill Decreased the Surplus
by 1.35 Trillion Dollars.
2003 - H.R. 2 which was President Bush's second Tax Cut for the Wealthy. So it was a Republican President
with a Republican Congress again. This Bill passed 50 - 50 with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie.
48 Yeas were Republicans, 2 were Democrats. 3 Nays were Republicans, 47 were Democrats.
FYI - The CBO predicted that this Bill Increased the Deficit by 350 Billion Dollars.
2006 - H.R. 4297 which was President Bush's third Tax Cut for the Wealthy. Again, a Republican President
with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed 54 - 44.
51 Yeas were Republicans, 3 were Democrats. 3 Nays were Republicans, 41 were Democrats.
FYI - The CBO predicted that this Bill Increased the Deficit by 70 Billion Dollars.
I also found evidence that some other Bills passed with Reconciliation with close votes but I couldn't find the Bill numbers so I couldn't verify the final votes.
I found articles that said 7 Bills passed with less than 60 votes. Again, far from the 100% that the Republicans have claimed to have had a huge majority win on.
2 of the others listed were the 1995 Balanced Budget Act with a win of 52 -47 (later vetoed) and the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act with a 50 - 50 tie with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie again - and only after they fired the Parliamentarian.
Now to me, there are some really important facts that we need to look at. These facts are not debatable - they're not open to interpretation. They are just the facts. I just don't see how any or either side or any person can put a spin on them. The facts are the facts. They are part of public record.
My first question would be:
Why would the Republicans have to have a Bill pass through Reconciliation if they had a majority vote?
Now the only reason to use Reconciliation is because of a filibuster or not having the majority vote. This means that the minority (mostly the Democrats) would have been filibustering these Bills. Therefore, I predict that they did not have a majority vote to begin with. Make sense?
Now then what comes next is a lot of back room dealing or horse trading, pork, pork, pork. So at some point, the majority (mainly the Republicans) must have been really wheeling and dealing to get these Bills through. So in the end, they brought along a few other "friends" to vote on the final Bill - either with back room deals or the amendments that were attached to these Bills. Then when the final Bills came to the floor, they ended up with a majority vote.
The other possibility could be that if the members opposed to the Bill then realized the Bill would pass with a 50% vote, some of them decided to vote for the Bill as they felt it would look good to their constituents. This in itself is reason enough that there shouldn't be anonymous votes allowed on the floor.
So there it is - the first of the de-bunking myths entries in my blog.
Off for some red carpet viewing - something almost as controversial. lol. Take Care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
