Friday, March 19, 2010
Congress / Hargrove Cooper Backs GOP Resolution To Force Vote On Senate Bill
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:25 AM
Since the Clinton push for health care reform in the 90s, Rep. Jim Cooper has largely been regarded as a) an intractable stick in the mud, or b) the punji stick that skewered the Clintons' bill.
Of course, it was more complicated than all that, and failure had many a disowning father. The same will be true should House Dems fail to come up with something this go-round, no matter how they go about getting it. And they seem to have embraced that part: Whatever it takes. Hence the prevailing attitude favoring "deem and pass," a way to approve the Senate bill without directly voting on it. Sidecar legislation with House fixes to the Senate bill would follow. It's looking like the most likely route to a reform that, while imperfect, might constitute a few baby steps in the right direction.
For whatever reason -- be it a potentially well-grounded concern that such methods could leave the piece of legislation vulnerable to a federal judge on questions of constitutionality, or simply that the president wouldn't "know whom to invite to the signing ceremony," Cooper said in a statement to Pelosi -- Cooper stood shoulder to shoulder with Republicans Thursday in a failed attempt to force an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill.
To be sure, the GOP is already carping about developing the legal foundation for lawsuits seeking to void health care reform. Cooper seems to be arguing that we shouldn't give them fodder by relying on what he admits is an oft-utilized parliamentary tool for such sweeping reform. At the same time, Cooper knows better than anyone the consequences of inaction. We spent more than $7,000 on health care per person in this country in 2007. We have the most expensive health care system in the world. It's expensive because it's inefficient. In fact, a good portion of the $7,000 is spent on administrative costs.
It's also expensive because millions of people in this country are uninsured. When a treatable medical condition balloons into a life-threatening disease requiring hospitalization because going to the doctor is too expensive without insurance, it becomes a taxpayer problem.
Despite the fact that we're first in the world for health care spending, we're way behind when it comes to infant mortality and adult mortality. All that money and we're really not better for it. If reform isn't realized this time -- no matter how it's done -- how long will it be before another president takes up the mantle? Another 15 years? Never? By then health care spending would have swelled by trillions of dollars per year, and the budget deficit would only grow.
If health care reform fails this time, Cooper won't be remembered as being the father of its undoing. But his constituents might not forget if he fails to stand up for reform he knows is right because he's uncomfortable with parliamentary procedure.
For the record, Cooper's entire statement:
"Madam Speaker, I will vote against the Previous Question Motion today because I think the American people deserve a clear, up-or-down vote on health reform. They deserve to know how their elected representative voted, without any parliamentary confusion or obfuscation. In addition to being a transparency and fairness issue, this may also be a constitutional issue because of the consensus that the House and Senate must pass identical bills before they can be sent to the President for signature.
"With all the publicity surrounding the so-called 'self-executing' rule, this procedure will not fool anyone back home, nor should it. It is, however, apparently designed to fool enough members of the House into believing that they did not support the Senate bill, even though, if they support the health reform package, they voted for it as the major component of the health reform.
"Unless we return to regular House procedure, we will never know how members would have voted on the Senate bill, by itself, and/or the reconciliation amendment, by itself. Since the President is apparently planning on signing the Senate bill before the Senate can take up the reconciliation amendment (as the Senate parliamentarian insists), no one will know who in the House of Representatives, in fact, supported the Senate bill. In simplistic terms, the White House will not know whom to invite to the signing ceremony.
"All this might be a parliamentary dispute if the possibility did not exist that a constitutional challenge would be brought against health care reform legislation. All it would take is one or two federal judges to void this fundamental reform because of a procedural failing. Supporters of reform will then regret taking this procedural shortcut, while opponents will welcome the opportunity to overturn the law and reopen the debate.
"I realize that both political parties have used self-executing rules dozens, even hundreds, of times. But, to my knowledge, these rules have never been used on an issue larger than banning smoking on airplanes, a $40 billion deficit-reduction measure, or raising the debt ceiling of the United States. None of these issues compares with the scope of health care reform. To my knowledge, no serious constitutional challenge has been mounted against these lesser uses of the rules, but one is certain to be lodged against the passage of health reform.
"Voting is the most important part of our job. We must vote honestly and openly on the separate issues that come before us."
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
Jim,
I am a born again Christian, I believe that is our duty as our Lord Jesus Christ did to protect the poor. Jesus kingdom does not belong to this world, therefore, Republicans and Democrats are alike sinners like all of us. If you call yourself a born again Christian and go to every Sunday to church and you are fine that your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ can not get insurance because they have a preexisting condition or they have to go to ER for treatment if you believe that helping 35 million of poor people that can not afford a doctor is socialism than as a Christian, my lord Jesus Christ is the biggest socialist ever existed.
He rejected all material possessions, he healed the poor, the untouchables, he surrounded himself with blue collar fishermen
he fed for free the masses. I bet that there are many brothers and sisters in Christ that have to remember that before being Tea party members or Conservative democrats or Republicans we are sons of God and our loyalty is with our maker and Lord Jesus Christ and if he wishes and wants free health care for the poor nobody will stop him.
He is the son of God just keep that in mind
God bless Mr Copper and please pray, and God will give you an answer do not follow the men
in your district follow Jesus he is the only way to the father
like
dislike
Don't get panicky about Cooper. He will vote yes, just like BartGordon announced yesterday. Both of them have a legacy of kicking their constituents in the balls, and in Gordon's case he has nothing to lose. Interesting that the Scene hasn't mentioned Bredesen's letter to Gordon and Corker telling them the state can't afford Obamacare. Hey, doesn't matter. It's all Marsha Blackburn's fault, right Bruce and Jeff?
NY Times lists Cooper as an expected "Yes"
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/16/us/politics/20100316-health-care-dems.html#nytint-full-log
I don't give Mr Prima donna that much credit.
Cooper has never been in question. Neither was Gordon once he decided to quit Congress. Tanner, on the other hand, really is a person of integrity. I would be surprised if he flipped to yes. The Hill newspaper at noon reports two flips, one from no to yes; the other from yes to no. According to their count that gives opponents 37 strong or likely votes, one away from forcing Pelosi to pull it. That does not include Tanner.
Both Ways Bart was a foregone conclusion once he decided to quit. One shouldn't be surprised if he has a new gig already lined up.
Coop, on the other hand, is Pelosi's pup and needs to begin looking for different work himself come January.
But 400 BILLION on unconstitutional health care is ok?
Prescription Drug Benefit.
The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage would be available to seniors through private insurers for a monthly premium estimated at $35. There would be a $250 annual deductible, then 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 would be reimbursed. Drug costs greater than $2,250 would not be covered until out-ofpocket expenses exceeded $3,600, after which 95 percent of drug costs would be reimbursed. Low-income recipients would receive more subsidies than other seniors by paying lower premiums, having smaller deductibles, and making lower co-payments for each prescription. The total cost of the new prescription drug benefit would be limited to the $400 billion that Congress had budgeted earlier this year for the first 10 years of this new entitlement program. The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215 (Roll Call 669).
Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR this bill.
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://tinyurl.com/qhayna
Mickey
While anyone with a neuron firing between their ears wants healthcare reform, any bill that would force someone to buy health insurance, is 100% grade A tyranny. Didn’t we get enough of that with Bush?? What more could the huge insurance companies want than that?? This is also another 'Obama the candidate' lie. He clearly stated that his plan would not force anyone to buy it. That was Clintomn's plan, remember..
Everyone should go watch the movie "Idiocracy" and see what we have become as a nation.
