I thought this was an interesting rejoinder to the complaint that the government is compromising religious liberty in the whole contraception situation, all the while some of the very same religious groups in some states are advocating for requiring women to get vaginal ultrasounds before obtaining an abortion.
I don't see how religious liberty is in any way constrained by the government's determination that institutions which are not "religious" in the sense of proselytizing or conducting religious ceremonies, and who serve a clientele irrespective of faith or belief or religious conviction, not to mention who employ people of differing faiths or beliefs or religious convictions, have to give the option for contraception to its employees in whatever health insurance plans are offered through the employer.
The opposition to contraception is a moral teaching, and allowing individuals to make the choice about it is not constraining religious freedom but advancing it. To restrict one's ability to contract with a healthcare provider for contraception is the real constraint on freedom. Those who have a religious conviction in opposition to contraception have the choice not to avail themselves of this healthcare provision, should they choose not to do so.
As is the case with the many, many, many conservative Tea Partiers today, watch how conservative folks continue to blather on and on and on about the end of civilization as they know it and the death of America and how Democrats will pay for not listening to "me, the people," etc., all the while they casually and willingly sign up for and take advantage of all the benefits that healthcare reform promises to them.
I suspect that there are conservatives who worry about their health security, yet who simply as a matter of instinctive reaction to the chicken-little doom-and-gloom prognosticators on Faux-news and talk radio say they are opposed to this "unconstitutional power grab and liberty-crushing government takeover," who also secretly are experiencing a sense of relief that this bill protects their health security. I suspect that there are conservatives who are entertaining a little ray of hope in the midst of their sourpuss Scrooginess that, maybe, you know, this bill really will free them up from the worries of crushing healthcare costs so that they can concentrate on building their businesses, doing their jobs, and enjoying life a bit more. And I suspect that as conservatives get used to the idea that life is better for me under the provisions of this bill, their opposition to the program will be directed not at the program itself, but rather at including the "undeserving" thee in it.
I KNOW that the first time an anti-reform conservative faces the decision by their health insurance company to deny them coverage under pre-existing conditions, they will be the first to wave that Healthcare Reform bill in the face of the insurance company. I KNOW that when an anti-reform conservative gets a call from his or her 22 year old child who is graduating college this May and says that she can't get a job in spite of her best efforts and worries about how she is going to treat her asthma, her anti-reform parents will tell her not to worry and will then go to their insurance company waving the new bill in their faces and order them to keep their daughter on their health insurance plan. I KNOW that every anti-reform conservative senior citizen Medicare recipient faced with the prospect of not having enough money to buy his or her medications will cash that $250 dollar check this year and will look forward to having that doughnut hole closed in the Medicare Part B program. I know that anti-reform conservatives will embrace this program and will even flaunt it if necessary, all the while they will go to Townhall meetings promising to kick their representative who voted for that bill that they will be brandishing to their benefit out of office for "not listening to them." The hypocrisy will be palpable.
I've been engaged in an exchange on Facebook with a couple of MDs who are essentially predicting the death of the medical profession because of healthcare reform. My excellent blog-rival Eric has also suggested as much in a couple comments on a post I wrote earlier on the "doc-fix."
But having given some intense thought to this over the past 24 hours, I've come to a startling realization that just never occurred to me before.
And it has to do with what I'd like to call, in honor of my patriotric conservative friends, "physician socialism." What is this "physician socialism," you ask? It's nothing more than physicians whose livelihoods are so dependent on sucking at the government teat that any threat to that income stream is blasted by anti-reform doctors as un-American and contrary to freedom. Actually, my simple realization is that it's quite the opposite.
Doctors are free to refuse to accept insurance contracts that force them to take "discounted" prices for their valuable services. Doctors are also free to refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients, too, thus rejecting the limits that come with accepting government reimbursements. And then I began thinking that if this healthcare reform bill were so god-awful, why didn't they just really test their services in the free market and institute a cash-for-service practice? In fact, it's what most of us do. But doctors would never accept this because it would mean that their incomes would plummet because they'd be faced with the reality that people just can't afford them at the prices they currently think their services are worth. There is a reason why the AMA supports healthcare reform. It's a means to make more doctors more wealthy through government transfers of wealth right into their bank accounts.
We're not likely to see Medical School admissions dry up in the coming years! We're not likely to see physicians abandon the profession! We're not likely to see physicians go poor! We're likely to see more doctors cashing in!
Think about it: the explosion in the wealth of doctors tracks directly with the expansion of government into the healthcare market via Medicare and Medicaid. Take government out, and doctors who can't compete for the few wealthy individuals who can pay for their expensive care, and we likely have either fewer total doctors, or certainly fewer excessively wealthy doctors. I'd imagine we'd have more doctors like that nice one on the Little House on the Prairie TV series who made housecalls and didn't break regular folks' bank accounts with his exorbitant fees.
But we have a culture where becoming a Doctor is synonomous with obscene wealth.
And yet I gather from my recent communications with some MDs that their incomes depend on anywhere between 50% and 80% of Medicare funds. I gather that there are very few doctors who don't accept a healthy percentage of Medicare patients. What am I left to conclude? That doctors are wealthy primarily because of "socialized" medicine via Medicare and Medicaid. They are the direct beneficiaries of "physician socialism."
Adios, Cao. No personal hard feelings. You're still a good guy in my eyes. And I may even support you on other pieces of legislation, such as they may be in the remainder of your sure-to-end term of office. But you have irretrievably lost my vote in November. There is no way you will be able to convince me that your "No" vote wasn't a vote against life. So much for Anh "Joseph" Cao, Resume of a Democrat. Sad.
I can only imagine what it must have been like for Cao to sit in his seat and listen to his fellow Republican members berate Democrats for failing to listen to the American people all the while knowing that he pointedly refused to listen to the clear majority of the people in his district who supported this bill.
UPDATE: Another thought. It must have been equally uncomfortable for Cao to sit there and listen to his Republican colleagues speak of backroom deals, hidden arm twisting, and order-taking from unelected special interests, instead of listening to the American people, yet knowing that he gave more credence to the Archbishop of New Orleans and the US Bishops on how to vote on the bill than from the express will of the very citizens, many of us Catholics ourselves, he was elected to represent. Yes, I'm bitter. I really stuck my neck out for Cao way back when, and I've been a defender of his since. And I do feel betrayed. I think Stupak showed a lot of courage. And it sickens me that Cao allies himself with folks who would call Stupak, of all people, a babykiller in the halls of Congress. Does Cao have no shame to sit next to such people? I don't know about the kind of Jesuit training he received, but the training I got from the Jesuits would lead me to find such behavior repugnant and abhorrent. Treating pro-life Democrats like Stupak in this way proves to me that the so-called pro-life Republicans don't give a damn about life, really. They would rather run into the ground every Democrat like Stupak who pushes hard within the party to advance a pro-life culture. They will never win the argument this way. Never. And Cao is one of them by association.
Listening to coverage of the House debate today on Healthcare Reform, and hearing some commentary from the public who are calling in to C-SPAN, I noticed a common refrain among conservative opponents of reform which strikes me as contradictory, and emblematic of the illogical and irrational reaction among conservatives regarding this issue.
On the one hand, conservatives seem to have some visceral reaction against government regulation and manipulation of private enterprise. So, one would think that any effort to institute government regulation on the marketplace of the legal profession would be anathema to conservatives. But the fact is that conservatives place something called tort reform high on their agenda for healthcare reform. But my question is what is tort reform if not government meddling in the marketplace of legal representation and justice. What seems patently obvious to me is that conservative want government regulation of things they don't like -- they want government to jump in the fray and tell lawyers that they can't use their skills to win restitution and compensation for victims of crimes by those found guilty of perpetrating such crimes. It's of a piece with the idea that some conservatives want government to ban the inclusion of teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in schools. Or they want government to impose a kind of moral code on society through such ludicrous things like the "Defense of Marriage Act." They have no problems with government banning the consumption of alcohol or marijuana. They are very much advocates for government meddling and interference in an individual's freedom as long as that meddling is in favor of something they don't particularly like.
I'm open to the idea of government regulation of the "justice" marketplace through tort reform, much like I'm open to the idea of government regulation of the banking industry to prevent fraud and mismanagement of the kind that nearly collapsed our finance sector. But then I'm a liberal Democrat who sees the value in government regulation in certain instances and circumstances. Conservatives aren't supposed to be that way. So, what I don't understand is how a conservative can find consistency in lambasting regulation of the private healthcare market through the current healthcare bill, but yet not lambasting, and in fact promoting, the idea of government regulation of the legal industry through tort reform. It seems they don't like "greedy" personal injury lawyers just like many of us don't like greedy insurance executives and bankers. So, I challenge my conservative friends to justify to me, in principle, their support of government regulation of the legal industry through tort reform and not government regulation of the health insurance industry through health insurance reform.
Of course, as anyone paying attention knows, the Stupak block, which held out over the abortion issue, has agreed to support the Healthcare Reform bill with the promise of an Executive Order by Obama to enforce the non-federal funding of abortion measures that are already included in the Senate bill. Unless something dramatic happens in the next hour, when the actual votes are cast and tallied, the measure will pass.
But let's turn to Anh "Joseph" Cao ... I found it extremely interesting in the most recent debate, when it seemed as if every single House Republican voiced his or her opposition to the Healthcare reform bill in a unanimous consent procedure, Anh "Joseph" Cao was not one of them. Or maybe I missed it, but I was paying pretty close attention, so I think not.
Not that this really means anything in particular, but I do find it curious. It leads me to wonder if Cao is having second thoughts. And now that it looks like the bill will pass with enough Democratic votes, especially with the cover provided by the Stupak block, perhaps Cao will turn his attention more towards voting for his constituents and giving himself a chance in November. We shall see. And I will be watching Cao closely on this. Very closely.
I'm watching C-SPAN online via live-streaming, and they just reported that Bart Stupak is now a "Yes" on the bill. If true, that is a monumental move in favor of passage of the Healthcare Reform bill, and may be enough to persuade "Cao" to also support. Wow! Fingers crossed!
I've called your DC office. I've called your New Orleans office. I sent you an email. I've exhorted you in a status update on my Facebook page. Now I'm pleading with you on this blog.
I want to impress upon you the importance to me, a fellow Jesuit-educated, mission-oriented, life-affirming Catholic, of passing the current Healthcare Reform bill that is up for a vote this afternoon.
This is it, Mr. Cao. The moment of truth. Here are some final things for you to consider:
1. Your constituents overwhelmingly want this bill to pass. You represent us. In your capacity as a Congressman, you do NOT represent the Catholic bishops, you do not represent the Pope, you do not represent me as an individual constituent, you do not even represent yourself as an individual constituent -- YOU REPRESENT YOUR DISTRICT as a collective. And your district overwhelmingly wants this bill passed.
2. Even Catholics in good standing can support this bill. Many already do. If you won't exercise your duty to your district and the majority of its constituents, opting instead to take your marching orders from your Catholic faith, listen to ALL Catholic voices -- including mine, and not just the patriarchy of the Catholic hierarchy. Good, pro-life Catholics SHOULD support this healthcare reform bill. That includes you.
3. As much as I like you on a personal level, if you do not support this bill, I will not only not be able to support your re-election, but I will actively work to campaign to unseat you. This is one issue where I will cut you no slack. And I would do this even if you were a Democrat. A representative who does not reflect the majority will of his constituents and ignores his constituents' clear wishes with such a measure of impunity simply does not deserve to hold this seat. Look over my blog, see how I have approached you, see how supportive and tolerant I have been towards you, even when I have disagreed with you. You need people like me in your corner. I say this not as a threat, because who am I but just an insignificant constituent with a blog read by only a handful of people, and so I effectively have no power to mount a threat of any substance against you. I say it only as a matter of fact, and as an expression of what I will have to do according to my own conscience should you vote against this bill.
Please, Mr. Cao, please. I entreat you. Vote "Yes" today.
I've been following the hullaballoo over the memo of questionable and unverifiable origin, circulated by Republican operatives, that purports to claim that some official Democratic Party representative has instructed Democrats to keep mum about the so-called "Doc Fix" that would bust the deficit-reducing CBO score of the Health Care Reform bill currently being considered.
Well, I'm convinced that the document is a hoax. And I think that the GOP should pay a heavy price for perpetuating such a hoax, or at least for not verifying the claims they made regarding this memo. The fact that the GOP shills who are responsible for disseminating this memo are unwilling to reveal even their sources for the information implies bad faith, if not outright and intentional lying, on their part. But I'm not really interested in piling onto the GOP. I expect them to play such dishonest, sleazeball politics. That's what they do. They don't idolize Karl Rove for nothing, you know. No, what I'm really interested in is what is at the crux of the matter: the Democrats' position on the so-called "doc fix."
What folks are saying about the fraudulent memo is that it may be "fake," but it's contents are nonetheless true. I'd like to challenge this interpretation on the facts.
Fact 1: The so-called "doc fix" (i.e. adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates paid to doctors by raising such rates to keep up with inflation in health-care costs, thus costing the government more money) is not currently law.
Fact 2: While Democrats have claimed that they will pursue a "Doc fix" down the road, there is nothing concrete about this claim other than that it is merely at this point a promise by politicians.
Fact 3: So, if the "doc fix" is not included in this bill, it cannot be scored in this bill in terms of its budgetary impact. To do so would be like saying that any future promises to build more VA hospitals or expand healthcare services to Veterans or subsidize med-school tuitions for veterans, etc., etc., must be scored in this current health reform bill. And this is patently ludicrous. Pretty soon, any bill seeking appropriations down the road, from military supplementals to highway reconstruction funds to agricultural subsidies could be claimed as something that would bust the budget-savings of the Health Care Reform bill were it to be included in the scoring process of the measure. Absolutely ludicrous.
Here's what I think is going on with the so-called "Doc fix" and what will eventually happen down the road when the time comes to debate and discuss such a fix:
1. The Democratic leadership is promising to take up and consider a "Doc fix" later in order to keep Doctors on board with the Health Care Reform measure.
2. The Democratic leadership, in separating out the "Doc fix" from the current Health Care Reform bill, are basically indicating that any future "doc fix" is not a "guarantee" of passage at all. In fact, Republican critics are speaking as if the "doc fix" is a guaranteed thing down the road. If they are so opposed to what it would do to the deficit, why wouldn't they just vote "No" as a block on this fix when it comes up down the road. Surely they could do this and thus the savings in both the current Health Care Reform bill would be maintained and any future deficit-funding liabilities would be avoided, too. But I suspect that the GOP knows that even many of its own members won't vote against the "doc fix" irrespective of its impact on the budget. In short, the GOP is just as likely to vote to deficit-finance the "doc fix" if considered on its own as they claim the Democrats would have to do if it were scored in the current Health Care Reform bill.
3. When the time comes for taking up the so-called "Doc fix," Democratic leadership will expressly look at how such a fix will impact the budget and will seek to mitigate its costs in other ways.
4. If those "other ways" to balance out the costs of the "doc fix" do not materialize because of a lack of Congressional will to make hard choices in doing so, then the "doc fix" will simply disappear into the ether (assuming the GOP sticks to its "fiscally-responsible convictions") and doctors will have to come to peace with accepting Medicare reimbursements at the lower rates.
5. This is just as likely a scenario to happen (in fact it's a more likely scenario, if you ask me), than Democrats passing a "doc fix" that's not paid for and is deficit-financed.
Democrats may take some heat for this from Doctors should this come to pass (but I'll bet some Republicans who also don't want to deficit-finance the "doc fix" will take some heat, too), but there is nothing inherently deceptive, nor budget-busting at all, in the Democrats choosing to separate out the issue of the "doc fix" from the current Health Care Reform bill. In fact, I think its a sound strategy for tackling the thorny issue of budget balancing in a way that allows Congress to gauge the sentiment of public opinion on the issue of Medicare compensation rates for doctors. My feeling is that the vast majority of the public will not have any problem asking doctors, if they want to suck at the government Medicare teat, to sacrifice their third Mercedes and their heated swimming pools to help balance the budget while helping more uninsured folks get the health insurance coverage they need. Doctors know that, too. And so do Congressional Republicans. I'd LOVE to see Congressional Republicans have to stick with their budget-balancing principles and vote "NO" on deficit-financing of such a "doc fix." But I know that Republicans, who wouldn't dare be principled fiscal conservatives on this issue alone, would love nothing more than to have the cover of the current Health Care Reform bill, which they can feel comfortable about voting "No" over because they've vilified it for so many other reasons, without having to deal with the fallout from dealing with a "No" vote on the "doc fix" by itself. And it is for these reasons why both groups, Doctors and Republicans, so desperately want this "doc fix" to be built into the current Health Care Reform bill. For Republicans, it's a way to sink the overall Health Care Reform bill, thus preserving the insustainable status quo, and shielding them from the heat they would face over a "No" vote on the "doc fix" by itself. And for Doctors, it's a way to make sure that there's more money available in the pot of federal resources to fund the "doc fix" and thus maintain the health of their swollen bank accounts without having to compete with those other claims on federal resources that come with giving the uninsured access to health insurance and affordable health care.
Fie on them both.
I HOPE that Health Care Reform passes AND that the "doc fix" ultimately fails.
As for my Doctor-friends who might be perturbed by my position, I say: come down to earth and live with rest of us. Out of all my doctor friends, there is not one whom I know who isn't living a very, very, very comfortable life -- even those who live primarily on Medicare reimbursements. It won't hurt you to live with a little less; and it shouldn't hurt you at all (in fact, I would imagine it would please you, being that you're supposedly a healthcare professional committed to saving lives) if living with a little less means giving your fellow human beings a chance to get affordable healthcare and to live longer, more productive lives.
Cao needs to listen to someone beyond the corrupted and cynical bishops. They are not the Catholic Church, we are. The National Catholic Reporter editorializes the truth about the Health Care Reform bill and the abortion issue:
Bottom line: The current legislation is not "pro-abortion," and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill.Via Andrew Sullivan. If Cao must align his votes in Congess with the Bishops instead of with his constituents, he ought at least to listen first to the Catholic voices iin support of the reform bill and then live up to his obligation to represent the majority will of his district.
Meanwhile, writing in The Washington Post last Sunday, T.R. Reid, a first-rate journalist, a Catholic, and author of "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care." argues persuasively that industrialized countries that achieve universal or near-universal insurance coverage have a demonstrably lower abortion rate than we have in the United States. It should matter to those who believe in the sacredness of all human life that this legislation will not only provide health care to those who don't currently possess it, but will encourage women facing crisis pregnancies to choose life. Given the intractable nature of the abortion debate in the United States, this amounts to a pro-life victory of historic proportions.
Well, it seems I was wrong. Cao is a "No" on the Health Care Reform bill. He must have wearied already of being in Congress because if he votes "No" he's electoral toast. I like the guy personally, but I will not vote for him again if he votes "No" on this issue. The GOP often complains that Congress isn't listening to the people on Health Care Reform. Well, all I can say is that Cao is not listening to his constituents who overwhelmingly support the Health Care Reform bill.
I called Cao's office today and the staffer I made my plea to heard me out and only said one word before hanging up: "Thanks." I could hear the resignation in this staffer's voice. He knows his gig is up.
I followed that phone call up with an email to Cao and made my final plea on moral grounds that Cao change his mind. I don't expect him to do so at this point, but anything is possible. I'm confident the bill will pass without Cao, but I'm very disheartened by and disappointed in him. I'll wait to see the actual vote before I bid Cao my good-byes.
It's simple ... if he wants to win in November, he votes "Yes."
The question is ... does he want to win in November? I say yes.
And I'm finally glad that some prominent Catholic voices are taking the appropriately bigger pro-life picture than just the anti-abortion part of it. When you factor in the larger pro-life calculus, there is much room for pro-life, anti-abortion people like Cao to vote "Yes" on the measure in good conscience.
What does this mean in the end? This means Cao votes "Yes."
My money's on the passage of health care reform. The current system is unsustainable. Obama is right: If not now, when? If not us, who? I think the US House of Representatives will pass the Senate version of healthcare reform with the hope of reconciliation in the Senate to address some of their concerns. But, I have to say that I don't think the reconciliation plan will ultimately pan out. And vulnerable House Democrats will point the finger at the Senate and say that they promised changes through reconciliation, but didn't deliver. And Senate Democrats will shore up their cred by saying they stood firm in not allowing reconciliation to proceed. Either way, we get health care reform. And everyone knows that once it gets passed, and people see that their lives are not worse off, and may in fact be better off with such a safety net in place, we Americans will just acclimate ourselves to it.
My B-2/3 made an astute comment about the healthcare debate as it has manifested itself between conservatives and liberals in this country. I think there is something to her observation.
She noted that for conservatives it seems as if the main issue surrounding the healthcare debate and the government's potential role in it has to do with $$$$$. The question seems to have less to do with the moral question of whether healthcare is a fundamental human right and something government should provide for its citizens as part of its obligations to promote the general welfare.
Liberals, on the other hand, see the whole question as defined by the moral side of it. Consequently, the cost of having the government involved in making healthcare available for all citizens is less of a concern than ensuring that people have access to adequate healthcare as their birthright.
This is not to say that the moral dimension does not factor into conservative calculus or that cost does not factor into liberal calculus, but rather that one seems to take precedence over the other depending on one's ideological leanings.
It stands to reason that if someone considers something a fundamental human right and a right of citizenship, then of course that person would be willing to absorb the cost of meeting this moral obligation in some fashion, and would see opposition to meeting this obligation as a evidence of a moral failure. It also stands to reason that if someone does not consider something a fundamental human right and a right of citizenship, then forcing someone to pay for meeting this benefit is perhaps an immoral coercion.
One can see the dilemma here and also understand the strong feelings that folks have on both sides of the issue.
Most people who talk about the loss of any Democratic/Independent seat in the Senate to a Republican (and this is possible in the Special Election in Massachusetts to fill deceased former Senator Ted Kennedy's seat) before the final vote on a healthcare reform bill speak as if this represents the deathknell for health care reform due to that pernicious and oft-abused filibuster power. But many of these people also fail to realize that once the Senate passes a bill, then if that bill isn't altered and the House passes the already approved Senate version by a simple majority, the bill never goes back to the Senate for another vote of that Chamber. Nope. It would simply go from the House to Obama's desk for his signature.
Now that's probably not the ideal scenario as members of the Democratic caucus in the House would have to accept the Senate's version whole hog (and let's remember that they've already been prepped to understand that any major modifications to anything of substance in the Senate version may cause the 60 vote coalition to fracture in the Senate, so there's already very little room to maneuver in the House/Senate negotiations on the final bill); but I can almost guarantee that the House Democrats would rather have the Senate's version than no version; and even the House Democrats most unsatisfied with the Senate bill would never allow Republicans to gloat that they were able to kill any health care reform proposal so painstakingly secured over the past many months by virtue of any successful GOP Senate filibuster made possible by a freak off-cycle election turnover. In fact, I'd say that even if the Senate Democratic Caucus maintains its 60 vote margin, but someone from that caucus like Lieberman or Nelson or Landrieu gets cold feet after their first "yes" vote, the House could basically undercut even the backtracking of one of its own Senate caucus members to basically pass what's already been approved by the Senate and keep the bill away from the fickle Senators.
So, the short of it is that the Senate has blown its wad on the filibuster. We already have a health care reform bill that made it through the Senate. As long as the House can stomach this version with a simple majority vote, the deal is done.
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance -- where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks -- the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supercede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom."
From Chapter IX of conservative intellectual Friedrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom.
What we need to remember is that the Senate's version does not include a public option, instead allowing 30 million currently uninsured American citizens to have access to affordable private insurance. These uninsured are currently subidized by the taxpayer anyway through reimbursements to hospitals and physicians for the much more expensive emergency room hospital care that the uninsured currently receive when they get sick.
He is the ONLY Republican in the Federal House of Representatives to vote for the House Health Insurance Reform bill. And Louisiana Democrat Charlie Melancon voted against it.
And I called it.
Good for Cao.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has endorsed the recently amended House Health Insurance Reform Legislation. They are convinced that the current amendmentment to the bill on the abortion question clearly and satisfactorily satisfies the Catholic Church's official, unwavering opposition to abortion. This means that not only do Catholic Legislators like Cao, Vitter, Melancon, etc., no longer have the abortion issue to hide behind, but they also are now faced with actually opposing their Church on the substantive question of health care reform as a moral imperative, a position the Catholic Church has always supported.
As Andrew Sullivan so bluntly said:
It's important to note what the theocons will never mention. Catholic teaching very, very strongly backs universal health insurance as a moral imperative.Let's see the "Cafeteria Catholics" of the right wing spin this.
I could be very wrong in these predictions, but I figure I ought to lay them out anyway. As it stands now (and this is subject to change as the bills themselves change), this is where I see the Louisiana Delegation voting on the Health Care bills currently working their way through the federal Congress.
Anh "Joseph" Cao, who is a Republican representing the heavily Democratic Louisiana 2nd Congressional District, is likely to support the bill. He may be the only Republican to do so. I say this because I think the compromise on the abortion question, which has been Cao's sticking point, should give him enough cover to assuage his honest moral concerns over the issue. And I think he knows that, unless he switches parties, which is more and more unlikely between now and next November, a "No" vote on the health care reform bill will doom his re-election prospects. Conversely, a "Yes" vote on an issue that is very important to the constituents of his district, is likely the best avenue for Cao to improve his chances for retaining the seat as a Republican. So much depends on whether Cao wants to have another term; and I think he does. So, therefore, I think he votes for the bill.
Charlie Melancon, who is a conservative Blue Dog Democrat, ironically, I think will go against his Party and vote "No" on the bill. There are enough Democratic seats in the Federal House of Representatives that a handful of Blue Dog Democrat defections is not likely to alter the final vote tally in support of the bill. Also Melancon is challenging David Vitter for a Senate seat, so he needs the cover of a "No" vote to have an important wedge issue he can use to buffet his credentials against Vitter in a state where a majority of the population opposes the Democratic Health Care bills. I happen to think Melancon supports the health care reform bills, and will be content to see the reform become a reality, even though he'll vote against it. It's pure political expediency, which is not all that admirable; but if Melancon hopes to defeat Vitter, and I want Melancon to defeat Vitter, then this vote is a necessary compromise. But I will also say that if it comes down to Melancon's vote as the deciding vote on passage (thought I think the odds of this happening are very long ones), I think Melancon will opt to vote for the bill and sacrifice his chance at the Senate in order to pass this important piece of legislation.
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana's recently re-elected Democratic Senator, will end up voting to approve the measure. This is perhaps the most important vote in the Louisiana Delegation, because it's crucial to end a likely Republican-led filibuster. And even though Landrieu has expressed reluctance about the public option being included in the bill, she's giving indications that recent tinkering with the bill is addressing her concerns. In effect, she, too, is building cover for her "Yes" vote in an electorate that tilts against a "Yes" vote. But the clincher is that Landrieu is not up for re-election for another five years, and by that time, anything she does now she can either effectively backtrack from or embrace then, depending on how the reform proceeds in its implementation and what the preliminary effects of the reform turn out to be. Given all this, I think Landrieu is a solid "Yes" vote.
The rest of the Louisiana Delegation, all disciplined, party-line, anti-Obama Republicans will vote "No."
So the final tally will be two "Yes" votes (one from the Republican Rep. Cao, and one from the Democrat Sen. Landrieu); and 7 "No" votes (one from the Democrat Rep. Melancon, one from the Republican Sen. Vitter, and five from all the remaining Republican Reps. in the delegation.)
Posts
All Comments
|
|
