WashPost editorial: Reconciliation and truth
Thursday, February 25, 2010;
LET'S get a few things straight about reconciliation, the procedure by which Democrats may be able to pass health-care reform by a simple majority. We aren't fans of using the reconciliation process for this purpose. To approve a change as sweeping as this on a party-line vote strikes us as risky for Democrats and, pardon the phrase, unhealthy for the country. But questioning the wisdom of using reconciliation is different from questioning its propriety. Republican rhetoric notwithstanding, using reconciliation in this context would be neither a misuse of Senate rules nor, in a historical context, unusual.
The Republican rap on reconciliation is that it is a "little used" (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) "abuse of the legislative process" (Indiana Rep. Mike Pence) that would be used to "jam this bill through Congress" (Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch). this is hard to take from a crowd that just a few years back was insisting on the preminent importance of the up-or-down vote. In fact, reconciliation is no more a tricky parliamentary maneuver than the filibuster. Senate rules allow a minority to block legislation by requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster. They also provide a way around the filibuster in certain circumstances involving budgetary matters.
True, the impetus behind reconciliation was to make it easier for lawmakers to make politically difficult decisions -- in particular, raising taxes or cutting spending to reduce the deficit. The rules still require a tight connection to budgetary issues, which is why Senate Democrats avoided the procedure to begin with. But reconciliation has been used numerous times to enact substantive changes, including major reforms such as the overhaul of welfare. Republicans tried, unsuccessfully, to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Most recent health-care legislation also has been approved through reconciliation: the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the ability to buy into employer-sponsored health insurance after leaving a job, federal standards for nursing home care, changes to Medicare-payment policies for hospitals and expansion of Medicaid eligibility.
(More here.)
LET'S get a few things straight about reconciliation, the procedure by which Democrats may be able to pass health-care reform by a simple majority. We aren't fans of using the reconciliation process for this purpose. To approve a change as sweeping as this on a party-line vote strikes us as risky for Democrats and, pardon the phrase, unhealthy for the country. But questioning the wisdom of using reconciliation is different from questioning its propriety. Republican rhetoric notwithstanding, using reconciliation in this context would be neither a misuse of Senate rules nor, in a historical context, unusual.
The Republican rap on reconciliation is that it is a "little used" (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) "abuse of the legislative process" (Indiana Rep. Mike Pence) that would be used to "jam this bill through Congress" (Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch). this is hard to take from a crowd that just a few years back was insisting on the preminent importance of the up-or-down vote. In fact, reconciliation is no more a tricky parliamentary maneuver than the filibuster. Senate rules allow a minority to block legislation by requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster. They also provide a way around the filibuster in certain circumstances involving budgetary matters.
True, the impetus behind reconciliation was to make it easier for lawmakers to make politically difficult decisions -- in particular, raising taxes or cutting spending to reduce the deficit. The rules still require a tight connection to budgetary issues, which is why Senate Democrats avoided the procedure to begin with. But reconciliation has been used numerous times to enact substantive changes, including major reforms such as the overhaul of welfare. Republicans tried, unsuccessfully, to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Most recent health-care legislation also has been approved through reconciliation: the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the ability to buy into employer-sponsored health insurance after leaving a job, federal standards for nursing home care, changes to Medicare-payment policies for hospitals and expansion of Medicaid eligibility.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
From MPR :
For 30 years, major changes to health care laws have passed via the budget reconciliation process. Here are a few examples:
1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs
1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care
1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program
1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care
1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid
1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children
1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare
1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP
2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid
Post a Comment
<< Home