Two Democratic Senators needed to sign on to health care debate

by Rory Cripps | November 21, 2009 at 12:13 pm

287 views | 20 Recommendations | 10 comments

Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska, said on Friday that he would vote to begin debate, this evening, on the Senate's health care bill. Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, both Democrats, have not yet committed to taking up the legislation, but are expected to do so. Both Senators are needed to sign on to the debate in order for the Senate to have the necessary 60 procedural votes to begin debating the bill. No Senate Republicans are expected to vote for this evening's debate.

UPDATE: This afternoon, as expected, Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, both Democrats, cast their votes to allow the Senate health care bill to be debated.

Senate Democratic leaders have clinched the votes needed to advance their health care bill into another round of debate, as Sen. Blanche Lincoln said Saturday afternoon she would vote 'yes' on a crucial procedural vote later in the day.

Democratic leaders entered the day two votes shy of the 60 needed to open formal debate on their massive health care reform package. But with the Arkansas Democrat announcing on the Senate floor that she would vote 'yes' for the scheduled 8 p.m. procedural vote, Democrats finally secured the necessary support to keep the bill alive.

Another holdout, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, two hours earlier also broke her silence and also promised to vote 'yes' Saturday night.

Sen. Nelson, who has reservations about the bill, and who had reservations about supporting the procedural vote, was quoted in the L.A. times as issuing a statement on Friday in which he said, "It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements." Sen. Nelson went on to say that, "If you don't like a bill, why block your own opportunity to amend it? . . . I won't slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans now. They want the healthcare system fixed. The Senate owes them a full and open debate to try to do so."

Senator Nelson, in Friday's statement, also said, “Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct. That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about. “It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday. “It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements. If you don't like a bill why block your own opportunity to amend it?

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said that the bill, "will save lives and it will save money."

Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky asked the question, “Why are we trying to do this — pass this 2,000-page bill that the American people oppose — when we ought to be addressing matters that are clearly needed and urgent?”

Senate Republicans, view the call this week for fewer cancer screenings for women under 50 and fewer cervical cancer screenings for women under30, by the The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force as an indication of the type of health care rationing and cost-cutting measures that will occur if the health care bill debated tonight in the Senate is passed. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's recommendations are typically followed by insurance companies and Medicare. As a result, Senate Republicans fear that insurance companies will potentially deny coverage for mammograms and cervical cancer tests.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, said the studies were a "peek under the curtain, if you will, of what we can anticipate with a government-run program."

"The real concern and the focus here is that we in this legislation give to the secretary of health and [human] services a great deal of control, a great deal of authority," while allowing "medical councils that are not elected, that are not appointed, to make medical decisions about whether or not our procedures will be covered," she said.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Amy Judd

at 12:47 on November 21st, 2009

Thanks for covering this story for us!

Rory Cripps

at 13:31 on November 21st, 2009

AMY: Most welcomed! As expected, we just learned that the two Democratic Senators needed to make up the 60 votes required to allow debate this evening have signed on and the debate will begin! It's an extremely controversial issue--and with good reason in my opinion.

Proposed National Health Care legislation has been off and on the U.S. political table for decades and the American voters have, thus far, not bought into it.I consider the legislation that will be debated in the Senate tonight as a last ditch effort to get some sort of national health care passed in the U.S.

A lot of political futures ride on the passage of a health care bill. "Health care" has indeed become an obsession on the part of many Democrats to the exclusion of virtually all else--including the American economy (which resembles a depression more than it does a recession) and the war in Afghanistan. If the Democratic majorities in both houses can't put the feather of passing health care legislation in their collective political caps, as it were, their party faithful will deem them to be abject failures.

In any event, however, even if national health care were to be passed, it's a no-win situation for the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration in terms of how the majority of American voters view national health care. At last count, about 80% of American voters were satisfied with their private health care policies. Voters is the key word here. In my opinion, the proposed health care legislation is a totally and completely unviable and economically and financially unsound piece of legislation that will have significant negative ramifications for decades to come--much like LBJ's "Great Society" programs if it should be passed. For the Republicans to fight the legislation every step of the way is a politically sound and pragmatic approach and will only score them political points in years to come.

Amy Judd

at 14:34 on November 21st, 2009

I totally get what you are saying, but what about all the people in the US that don't have health care? I'm sure 80% of the people that have private health care are perfectly satisfied with it, but isn't this to help the people who don't have any health care? I don't know, I haven't been following this too closely as I know you guys will cover it for me and you all know more about it than I do!

Rory Cripps

at 15:25 on November 21st, 2009

AMY: I don't believe for a minute that proposed health care legislation stems from humanitarian efforts to help those that are not insured. If it did, I'd be all for it and I'd even be willing to pay for some of it through my taxes. But in my opinion, "health care" is simply a mantra for, and a vehicle in which, the "progressive" wing of the U.S. Democratic Party can exert control over the lives of Americans. The reality is that there is not one person in the U.S.--and that includes all illegal aliens--that are refused "health care".

I've stated on NP before that I'm, personally, not satisfied with my private health insurance plan. And due to the fact that I've got an autistic daughter, I've become intimately familiar with many aspects of American "health care" in terms of government-sponsored and privately-sponsored. If my daughter didn't receive the private treatment and medication that she's been receiving from private-care practitioners, she could very well end up in an institution. It's a precarious situation, and as such, I'm not willing to gamble that the U.S. government will be better able to provide my daughter with the health care that she often and desperately needs. Only a fool or an ideologue would place their faith in the U.S. government to do the right thing.

Again: IMHO, the Obama Administration, together with the Democratic-controlled House and Senate are obsessed with passing "health care reform" legislation (to the exclusion of all other pressing and more important issues) for the sole purpose of scoring cheap and cheesy political points from their party's faithful left-wing fringe and potential voters from the ranks of illegal immigrants. It's all about numbers and the most cynical of political motives.

YankeeJim

at 15:51 on November 21st, 2009

I disagree that the motivation is for anything less than noble purpose. The trouble is that government-run solutions are so mismanaged due to the inefficient nature of government. And, whose fault is that?

When Republicans and Democrats chosse to bicker instead of collaborating, we all lose.

stejeb

at 15:37 on November 21st, 2009

We have the National Health Service here, it depends on which health authority area you live in as to which treatment you get, we call it the "postal code lottery".......and we are just a small nation with a government run health service - I can only say....good luck America!

Rory Cripps

at 16:41 on November 21st, 2009

stejeb: Thanks for your comment and input! Much appreciated!

Hugh Askew

at 18:10 on November 21st, 2009

Power Grab. Plain & Simple.

Ben Nelson implied yesterday (friday) that his choice to allow debate did not signal a change of mind on the bill itself.

Rory Cripps

at 18:18 on November 21st, 2009

Hugh: HA! I find it not only irrational, but frightening, that Americans, to this day--and in spite of all the crap that has gone down throughout the years--continue to put their faith in a particular political party and, in many cases, attribute God-like traits to individual politicians such as BHO.