Two health care-related developments this week demonstrated why the U.S. Senate is home to the country’s most exasperating people – and why it may not be the people we should blame.
First, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, former-Democratic-vice-presidential-candidate-turned-independent-turned-acceptable-independent-because-he-caucuses-with-Democrats, put the kibosh on a plan that would seek to expand insurance coverage for some Americans between 55 and 64 through a Medicare buy-in.
Lieberman said from the start that he would not only oppose, he would filibuster, any health care plan that created a public option because of concerns about the strain it would put on the country’s finances. The buy-in proposal, though it was produced by negotiations involving liberal and conservative Democratic senators, has the same problem, Lieberman says.
So President Obama reportedly directed his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to negotiate directly with Lieberman to secure the passage of something, anything, even if it meant dropping the buy-in – or any other incarnation of the public option – altogether.
Why all the fuss over ol’ Joe? Because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has to get 60 votes on a measure to end debate on it and proceed to a vote, a process known as cloture.
Lieberman is Democratic Caucus member No. 60. Since no Republican is supporting the plan, Lieberman is the opposite of expendable.
Liberals have reviled Lieberman ever since he supported President George W. Bush’s military efforts in Iraq. But their barely-concealed frustration has now deteriorated into outright disgust. They fume about one man having such power and sway over the content of the bill (coincidentally, much in the way that Republicans objected to Sen. Olympia Snowe’s involvement in health care negotiations with Democrats a few months ago). Then Wednesday, the Senate rejected two amendments that would have cleared the way for Americans to buy cheaper prescription drugs from other countries.
It was considered a victory for President Obama, even though he had campaigned on legalizing importation: Pundits excuse the president’s blatant flip-flop because in exchange for his opposition to importation, Big Pharma agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over 10 years to make his health care plan more financially palatable.
Get this: Pharmaceutical companies spent more than $20 million to lobby lawmakers from January through October.
That number doesn’t include lobbying efforts in November or December, when action on health care picked up on Capitol Hill. It also doesn’t include campaign contributions or the millions that pharmaceutical companies spend propping up lawmakers, lauding their efforts in fancy commercials in their districts. But even altogether, those efforts are a bargain for Big Pharma.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Americans could save as much as $100 billion, with a B, if importation was legal.
You’ve heard the saying, “Don’t hate the player. Hate the game”?
The Senate isn’t built for speedy production. The Founders designed it to be labyrinthine. And so Lieberman and Snowe – and even Democrat Ben Nelson, who’s digging in on his insistence that restrictions on federal funding for abortion be written into the bill – are doing what they are supposed to do as members of our country’s most powerful lawmaking body. They are independent thinkers. It isn’t their fault that most of their colleagues have become parrots for their parties.
The problem, then, doesn’t lie with the individual senators (even though, as Washington Sen. Patty Murray proved with her comments about Alabama this week, they do make buffoons out of themselves).
The problem is a flawed system that empowers the privileged over the ordinary, in political campaigns and legislative sessions alike.
It’s time to rewrite the rules of that game.
Jennifer Foster is a political enthusiast who lives in Auburn and writes a column for the Opelika-Auburn News. She can be reached at jefoster1@bellsouth.net
Advertisement