Over the next few weeks the House version of the Healthcare Reform Bill and the Senate version of the bill need to be merged to form one final bill. The final version of the compromised bill which comes out of the conference committee will be voted on by both chambers of Congress. The final version of the bill which comes out of the conference committee cannot be added to or amended by either chamber, it must be voted on exactly in the form the bill comes out of committee.
The Senate Healthcare Reform Bill has several items within the bill that will be, or at least should be challenged on constitutional grounds. There are at least 3 items within the bill which many legal scholars feel are unconstitutional. These items are:
1) The state of Nebraska is exempt from any additional Medicaid expenses as a result of the passage of the Healthcare reform bill. The Federal government will reimburse the state of Nebraska for these costs. This amendment violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.
2) The Senate bill requires people or businesses to buy insurance. There is no provision in the constitution that permits the Federal government to regulate this type of activity. The commerce clause in the constitution strictly limits the Federal government’s power in this regard.
3) The Federal government will be allowed to fine individuals or businesses that do not buy health insurance. This provision violates the 16th Amendment, which regulates the way the Federal government can raise taxes. The fact that the bill calls it a ‘penalty’ is irrelevant; it is the activity that is important.
Public opinion polls continue to show support for the Healthcare reform bill at less than 40%. But, of the 60% who oppose the bill, the reasons are greatly varied. Approximately 15% of those opposed to the bill oppose it because it does go far enough toward socialized medicine. The remaining 45% oppose the bill because they don’t want more government intrusion in general and/or healthcare specifically.
Every American should also be very concerned with the approach that has been taken by the Senate in order to pass the bill. Whether you support the Healthcare reform bill or not, the process that has been adopted by the Senate should have you sit up and take notice.
For the majority of the formulation of the bill’s content and amendment process and the ensuing ‘debates’ the Republicans were excluded from the process. This bill is essentially a Democrat bill, with very little input from the opposing party (who represent 46%, almost half of the population).
Whether you are Democrat or Republican, the fact that the majority party is not interested in bi-partisanship, should be of concern to you. The majority party will not be in power forever, and when the public opinion shifts, and the majority party changes, will you be OK with the opposing party using the same tactics?
A major concern, now that the Healthcare Reform Bills are slated for conference committee meetings, is the process under which the bills will be merged. Over the week-end staffers from both the House and the Senate have stated that there will be no official conference committee meetings. The excuse given is that Republicans will use the conference committee meetings to raise objections and raise procedural questions just to delay and obstruct the process. Even if this rational is correct, it still appalling that ANY elected representative would support the exclusion of one political party from the debate on a major policy issue on a national level. This is a major political issue, and for one party to try to exclude the other party from a full, formal debate on the issue should be abhorrent to every single American.
On a positive note C-SPAN has called out President Obama and Congress to open up the conference committee debates to national scrutiny. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open “all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings,” to televised coverage on his network. During his campaign President Obama promised, “That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.”
Let’s see what happens with this challenge in the coming weeks.
The healthcare reform bill cleared another hurdle on Sunday night when the Senate voted to bring the bill to the floor for a final vote. This vote is currently set for Thursday, December 24th. There are several procedural votes that need to occur, but it looks like the bill will pass on Christmas Eve, as a present to the citizens of the United States.
Several amendments have been added to the 2,000 page bill in the last week to placate some constituent groups. The main amendment is a 383 page amendment that does have some language which addresses tort reform in the medical field, while this amendment sounds as if it was intended to reform the tort system, and reduce costs associated with it; it actually does very little in the way of tort reform. The amendment allocates $50 million over the next 5 years to study the situation and make recommendations for changes. It would appear that this amendment is being added so that the Senators can say that they have addressed tort reform in the healthcare reform bill when they are campaigning for re-election next year.
On Monday this week, Dr. Cecil Wilson, president -elect of the AMA, announced the AMA’s support for the reform bill. Among the items that Dr. Wilson praised were:
- Eliminate denial based on pre-existing conditions.
- Increased coverage for preventive and wellness care
- Eliminate life-time caps on medical coverage
“The AMA will stay engaged in the process to ensure that the final bill that goes to President Obama for his signature will improve the health care system for patients and physicians,” said Dr. Wilson.
Is that why the AMA supports the bill?
COMMENTS: It appears that the items mentioned above do not reduce costs, but Howard Dean, former National Democratic Committee chairman, this week voiced his displeasure with the bill saying that without a public option, or a lowering of the Medicare eligibility then the bill will just be an expensive mess that does not change our medical insurance system or increase payments to doctors and hospitals.
Harry Reid, (D-Nevada) Senate majority leader, has included language in the bill that would make it illegal to repeal or amend this healthcare reform bill after it has been passed.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) has expressed his outrage over this language calling it unconstitutional. Other commentators have claimed that this is the type of behavior you expect from third world dictators, not in the US Senate.
If you listened to left-leaning talk radio this week, you would have heard a lot of talk about how the Democrats have caved-in to big pharma, insurance companies, and trial lawyers. These comments are based on the following items left out of the healthcare bill:
- No provision to allow re-importation of drugs from other countries
- No public option in the bills
- No REAL tort reform in the bill, despite the new amendment
Conservative talk radio is just as upset with the bill, because it forces people to buy health insurance, (this ,too, may be unconstitutional), increases taxes, and limits freedom of the citizens. With so many people on both the left and the right dissatisfied with the bill, you have to wonder: “Why the rush to pass the bill before Christmas?” You have to wonder if ‘politics before patients’; as has been said about the bill, is the driving force behind it. I certainly hope this is not the case.
Two versions of health care reform have been written, one passed by the house and one, which will be voted on by the Senate in December. Both of these proposals contain provisions for a public option, which amounts to a health insurance plan that is completely funded and operated by the Federal Government to compete with private insurance companies. This plan would not replace traditional private insurance companies, as that scenario is referred to as a “single payer system” which has also been heavily debated. Rather, the public option offers people another choice for health care that is different from private insurance. This topic is one of the most divisive issues contained in each bill so far, and many lawmakers have taken a firm position on whether or not the new health care reform bill should contain a public option.
Those who support the public option see it as a way to guarantee coverage to people who may not be able to obtain it from private insurers due to cost, pre-existing conditions (another contentious issue) or you’re their type of employment. Arguments for the public option describe the current system through private insurance as unfair, wasteful, and unaffordable to many. Current health insurance plans are also described as prohibitive and discriminatory in that many treatments are not covered, and that women pay higher premiums than men do. Supporters of the public option see this alternative as an efficient way to offer benefits, as there would be no salaries for CEO’s and low administrative costs.
Many lawmakers do not support a public option in the health care reform bill. One of the most prominent arguments against the public option is that it is one step closer to a single payer system, which would entirely eliminate private health insurance companies and put full control of healthcare costs in the hands of the federal government. With either a public option or single payer system, many conservatives believe that the costs will actually be much higher than the current system due to government inefficiencies. With large financial obligations already looming, many are very apprehensive about moving forward with a health reform bill that will add significantly to the mounting debts of the nation.
At present, there are varying opinions about how to approach the problem of the uninsured and there are powerful lobbies on both sides of the issue, including the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the American Medical Association and the AARP, to name just a few. Democrats argue that the insurance industry is monopolized with only a few large insurers in control, while republicans argue that lawyers have too much control in the current tort system, and that large verdicts are placing an excessive burden on medical professionals. There is a consensus among democrats and republicans that the nation’s poor are in dire need of help with respect to healthcare in the United States, and that the middle class is struggling under the high cost of medical insurance premiums, and that some relief in this area would be a boon to the current economy.
