Today I opened my e-mail to find a letter from one of my Senators, Jim Webb. I voted for him. I contributed to his campaign. I phone banked for him. What a waste of my time and resources! If you would like to see why health care reform is failing and what Democrats are doing to run for cover in the face of their massive moral and political failure, follow me below the fold.
Knowing of your interest in the ongoing debate in Congress over health care reform, I wanted to update you on a number of votes and positions that I have taken during the process.
Together with 60 of my colleagues, I voted in favor of proceeding to debate the proposed health care reform legislation. I have yet to decide whether I will support final passage of the bill.
Really? This is the first I have heard about this. You have always said you supported it.
I have stated on several occasions my concerns that the Obama administration should have begun the health care process with a clear, detailed proposal, from which legislation could then be put into place. Instead, the legislation now before the Congress is the product of five separate congressional committees, three in the House and two in the Senate.
Senator, whose job is it to draft legislation? And what about the President’s plan didn’t you understand? Was it affordable coverage? Or the prohibition against excluding people for pre-existing conditions that was too difficult? Perhaps you didn’t understand the part that prohibited insurance companies from canceling people’s coverage because they had a serious injury or illness? Also, are you telling me that you don’t think your colleagues are capable of drafting legislation? What have you done to convince your Republican colleagues or Senators Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman to support the existing legislation?
I and my staff have carefully worked through thousands of pages of sometimes contradictory information, and have done our best to bring focus to the debate and clarity to any final product.
Senator, what exactly did you do? Did you offer clarifying language? What you are telling me Senator, is that since there is neither focus nor clarity on the legislation so far, you have been ineffective.
Our country needs health care reform. While a strong percentage of Americans are satisfied with their health care,
Um Senator, in what universe are you living? What poll tells you that a "strong percentage" of Americans are satisfied with their health care? And what does a "strong percentage of Americans" mean? Have you been sneaking sips from the Republican Kool-aide with the Tea Baggers? Do you think I am so stupid as to take that kind of double speak to mean a majority? This letter is worthy of your predecessor Senator Maccaca Allen. Have you been sneaking a peek at his letters to constituents for ideas?
the system is not working for millions of others.
Figured that out did ya?
Spiraling costs for health care also have placed our biggest industries at a severe competitive disadvantage worldwide, and have become unsustainable for many small businesses.
So, Senator, why have you and your colleagues failed to reach agreement on this important legislation? What I’m hearing here, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your colleagues realize that Health Care reform is critical to the "general welfare" of the United States but for petty, partisan, purely selfish reasons, you and your colleagues can’t agree? I’ll be sure to pass that along and you be sure to check how well you and your colleagues are doing in the polls.
But true reform must be done in an effective and responsible fashion, without creating a cumbersome, overly-bureaucratic system.
Senator, when you refer to a "cumbersome, overly bureaucratic system" are you including Cloture? Do you think the current state of the insurance industry is well, stream-lined? My son who must take a powerful blood thinner for his heart condition needs an at home monitoring kit. If he gets the kit, it will save the insurance company and our family money in the long run and it will be a more effective means for monitoring his INR levels. I just heard that it is going to take the insurance company four to six weeks to approve coverage for this device, even though they have all the records and a statement from his cardiologist. In what world do you think that the current legislation will be more cumbersome and bureaucratic than the current insurance industry procedures? Or is this double-talk for why you don't support the public option after you said you did? Did you and Joe Lieberman get together over the weekend and decide to use the buddy system to betray our interests?
The bottom line should be to achieve a more cost-effective health care system that increases accessibility, affordability, and quality of care, and which does not burden our economy along the way.
Um Senator, the CBO has said that the current proposal in the House which includes a public option as well as the Senate version will not increase the deficit. So how will it burden our economy? Or is it that you are worried about your friends in the insurance industry who might have to compete in a truly free market and won’t be able to maintain the current multi-million dollar salary and bonus structure for their executives. Come on now, be honest. Who are you really worried about? Perhaps you just want to see the President fail so you can run a centrist Primary challenge. Your position here keeps your friends in the industry happy (good for campaign contributions down the road) at the expense of your constituents. Does that keep you up at night?
The process also requires openness, so that the American people understand exactly what is being debated. At the start of this debate I was one of eight Senators who called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to post the text and complete budget scores of the health care bill on a public website for review at least 72 hours prior to both the first vote and final passage. This request was agreed to, affording proper transparency in the process.
Over the past few weeks, I have taken a number of difficult votes. As with every other issue since I came to the Senate I have voted my conscience throughout this process. I have broken with my party six times, including four votes to send the current legislation back to committee for a more thorough review.
Senator, it sounds like you’re in the Republican Kool-aide again. Just exactly what did you think needed to be reviewed again? Or are you just trying to play both sides. Certainly you are assisting them in delaying this legislation. Why?
I voted five times against proposed cuts to Medicare due to my concerns about taking half a trillion dollars out of that system at a time when the pool for Medicare is about to expand with the retirement of those in the Baby Boom generation.
Senator, which cuts would that be? Are you talking about cuts that were proposed by the Bush administration or are you against the cuts for wasteful spending proposed by the Obama administration? Seriously, you need to be more clear.
I am a long-time supporter of Medicare Advantage programs which have, in my view, improved services in rural areas of Virginia, and I did not want to see cuts to benefits or services.
On the issue of abortion, I studied the bill closely to ensure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions.
Senator, that doesn’t endear you to me. I really don’t appreciate the way so many men think that they should have the final say over my body or any other woman’s body. Men are the ones who start the wars that kill so many babies. Men are the ones that keep them going. All episodes of genocide in history in which millions of children have died were initiated by men. Spare me the faux morality.
I am convinced that this legislation strictly adheres to the requirements of the Hyde Amendment. It also includes clear conscience provisions for providers and consumers who elect to reject a plan that offers such coverage.
Its just too bad that you haven’t done more to understand the other parts of health care reform so you could tell me exactly what your problems with this legislation are. Instead you send me this CYA letter which is clearly intended to shift responsibility away from yourself and your colleagues for failing to pass significant and important legislation.
Since drug prices in the U.S. have risen dramatically in recent years�a 9% jump in 2009 alone�I have cosponsored an amendment to lower prescription drug costs. The measure would allow Americans to safely import lower-priced, Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs from other approved countries, and save the federal government nearly $20 billion over the next ten years.
Senator, good on ya for that.
In summary, I have been working actively to improve the health care reform bill for the good of our country and without bowing to party politics.
Senator, do you read these letters before your aides send them out? You haven’t told me anything you’ve done to "improve the health care reform bill". You've reviewed the bill to make sure a woman’s rights over her own body are as restricted as possible, and sponsored an amendment to promote competition for drug costs. Mostly, you've voted against your party (and my interests, participated in delaying the bill and for the second time in a letter to me, you are blaming President Obama for the Senate’s failures. It sounds to me like you really have a problem with that Republican Kool-aide.
As we continue to debate the bill and amend it, I remain hopeful that the Senate can reach consensus on fair and effective health care legislation. Whether this is so will determine my vote on final passage.
Senator, just what is it that you want the bill to include? Or are you afraid to tell me? I get the sense that you are hoping that the Senate won’t reach a consensus. That way you can keep your corporate patrons happy and blame President Obama to your constituents. Sorry, Senator, I don’t buy it. I suggest you read the Constitution. You and your colleagues, not President Obama have responsibility to draft and pass this legislation. Get on it Senator.
As the Senate continues to debate health care reform, please be assured that your views will be very helpful to me and my staff. I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with us in the years ahead.
You can bet on that, Senator. And I will feel free to share your thoughts with others
Thank you again for your interest in this important matter.
Senator, since you have been so kind as to write this CYA letter to me, I thought I would return the favor. Here is a little something for you from the Constitution of the United States:
Article I Section I: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to ...provide for...the general welfare of the United States.
Article I Section 7: Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated.
Senator, in case you are confused, this is the extent of the President's Constitutional responsibility for legislation. I am afraid that the buck (so to speak) stops with you and with your colleagues.
Article II Section 3: He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union and shall recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them ...
Senator, the plain meaning of the Constitution vests in the two houses of Congress the responsibility to pass legislation for the general welfare of the United States. The President may recommend legislation (as President Obama did) but he does not have the responsibility to write it or the power to pass it. Unfortunately, the Framers believed that the Congress would contain people committed to the welfare of the United States rather than people committed to their own pocketbooks and political futures. The framers believed that the Congress would consist of people who actually cared for the people they represented and who would act in their interest rather than in the interest of their corporate patrons. How foolish of the Framers! What could they have been thinking? What could we have been thinking when we elected most of you?