Follow this blog:
RSS

In the Senate health care debate the smallest minority rules

By | December 4, 2009, 7:16 AM PST

There are three groups in any important Senate debate.

  1. The majority, without which a bill does not come to the floor.
  2. The minority, who look for any way in which to stop the majority from acting.
  3. The smallest minority, those in the middle, the weakest links on both sides of the question.

This is now playing out and, as is always the case, it’s those in the middle who have the most power. (Shown is the 1995 Capitol Christmas tree, courtesy of the U.S. Senate. Nice, Republican tree.)

Conventional wisdom holds the most contentious issues are abortion and the public option. But there are a lot of moving parts to this bill. The Senate majority is looking for a combination of amendments that they can swallow but will allow the bill to get the 60 votes needed to end debate.

One idea getting attention from moderate Republican Olympia Snowe and moderate Democrat Blanche Lincoln is to allow the creation of nationwide plans that override state insurance regulations.

Another idea is to focus less on the public option and more on the creation of health insurance exchanges, creating affordable coverage for individuals and small businesses.

Whatever the final formula turns out to be Republicans will oppose it. The minority has no obligation to support what the majority wants. But no matter how liberals are squeezed in the next few weeks, it’s very likely something will pass because they believe the status quo is unsustainable.

Look for whatever it is under your Christmas tree. And expect it to look like a Christmas tree, with a bunch of amendments forced on the many by the very few.

That’s how the sausage factory works. Sage is just an herb.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Healthcare

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

2
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Best Practices?
Currently each state regulates the medical, insurance and legal fields affecting our costs of healthcare. Can the federal government really fix anything by reaching in and nationalizing one area without controlling the others?

Much like the patchwork of insurance regulations across the country, our legal system is also fragmented from state to state. Should the federal government replace the state legal systems as well?

A very real part of the problem is that the majority is looking to push their ideas instead of looking for "best practices". Which states have lower premiums? What is different? My insurance costs much less than the national average. Why is Texas so much cheaper?

The idea for states to opt-out is intriging however would that allow the residents to opt-out of paying for states that opt-in?

I agree that there may well be a bill by Christmas however we would be better off with a lump of coal.
Posted by gbryantiv
8th Dec 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Texas is not cheaper
Not only is care in most of Texas not cheaper than average, its price
is rising faster than elsewhere. You may be referring to malpractice
rates, which were promised to drop under tort reform. In fact, they
stabilized and I believe then went back up again.

The key Republican ideas brought to this debate that Democrats have
tried to treat seriously are "tort reform" -- replacing the state
legal systems as you call it -- and interstate competition --
nationalizing the insurance market in your words.

I find it funny that those ideas go against the spirit of federalism
and states' rights that always animated Republicanism when I was
young. But given the scale insurers need and the opportunities for
savings in a national tort system they deserve serious consideration.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
12th Dec 2009
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet Community and join the conversation! Signing-up is free and quick, Do it now, we want to hear your opinion.