The Health Care Summit - Does it really matter?

I am sure we all have our own separate views on the necessity of health care reform - how we go about it, what needs to be reformed, should the government be involved, should it be the priority, etc.  So, in order to show the American people that he truly wishes for a bipartisan bill, the President has called a summit of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and Representatives, to try to devise a bill that everyone can agree with.

First, almost everyone can see through this charade.  The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months.  The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November.  Besides, the administration has already developed a bill.  They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.

Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes.  They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters).  They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time).  They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it.  After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans.  They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.

Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill?  What is so magical about bipartisanship?  Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies.  They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution.  When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship.  We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for.  I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan.  There is no character in that.  Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate.  Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.

Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care.  This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote.  The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running.  Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote.  When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).

If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench.  However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.

Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis.  In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay.  The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator.  They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval.  They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants.  A few years ago, debate was important.  It needed to happen.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.  They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it.  They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver.  Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.'  In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.

This is the problem with our elected officials today.  They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent.  We are finally starting to see a backlash.  A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why.  They do not listen to the people that they represent.  Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough.  And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time.  And that is not necessarily a bad thing.