And Then There Were 60. Al Franken to Senate, Giving Democrats a Filibuster-Proof Majority.
Al Franken has won. So says the Minnesota Supreme Court, and his opponent, Republican Norm Coleman, who has conceded.
This, thanks to the November elections and the more recent defection of Arlen Specter, leaves Democrats with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. According to CBS, “Franken said he had spoken to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said Franken will be on the Health, Education, Aging, Indian Affairs, Labor and Pension and Judiciary Committees.”
If not correct in his timing (and who knows as to longevity) Mr. Franken was at least somewhat prescient in regard to himself in his early Saturday Night Live skits:
Thank you, Jane. Well, the “me” decade is almost over, and good riddance, and far as I’m concerned. The 70’s were simply 10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious problems facing our nation…. That’s right. I believe we’re entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade. Oh, for me, Al Franken, the 80’s will be pretty much the same as the 70’s. I’ll still be thinking of me, Al Franken. But for you, you’ll be thinking more about how things affect me, Al Franken. When you see a news report, you’ll be thinking, “I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this thing?”
It has been a long time since a President of the United States has enjoyed the power of his party alone to invoke cloture–the process by which a filibuster may be ended. And it is a power of considerable magnitude.
According to the Congressional Research Service, “Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate,”
The ability of Senators to engage in filibusters has a profound and pervasive effect on how the Senate conducts its business on the floor. In the face of a threatened filibuster, for example, the majority leader may decide not to call a bill up for floor consideration, or to defer calling it up if there are other, equally important bills that the Senate can consider and pass without undue delay. Similarly, the prospect of a filibuster can persuade a bill’s proponents to accept changes in the bill that they do not support, but that are necessary to prevent an actual filibuster. (p. 2)
For those of you unfamiliar with the cloture process, the following may be of some use.
Senate Rule XXII… known as the “cloture rule,” enables Senators to end a filibuster on any debatable matter the Senate is considering. Sixteen Senators initiate this process by presenting a motion to end the debate. The Senate does not vote on this cloture motion until the second day after the motion is made. Then it usually requires the votes of at least three-fifths of all Senators (normally 60 votes) to invoke cloture….The primary effect of invoking cloture on a question is to impose a maximum of 30 additional hours for considering that question. This 30-hour period for consideration encompasses all time consumed by roll call votes, quorum calls, and other actions, as well as the time used for debate. (Id.)
Which is to say that given a unified Democratic Senate, under Rule XXII, the threat of a Republican filibuster would now only be the threat of a thirty hour delay.
That, for Democrats, it would seem, is a commanding position.
In Chapter XXII of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius,” 1531, he has this to say about such positions
And here we may note that he who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command; and those give proof of knowing this who properly estimate their own strength with reference to that of those who have to obey, and who commands only when he finds them to bear a proper proportion to each other, and who abstains from commanding when that proportion is wanting.
It would seem as though the proportion is no longer wanting. As we pointed out yesterday, Republicans are calling, if not pleading, for bipartisan health care reform. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that they should do so. However, the question now is whether Democrats will be sufficiently cognizant of both Rule and Chapter XXII.
I advise on several health insurance boards such as http://www.benefitsmanager.net , http://www.bcbstx.info , and http://www.healthinsurancesource.net. I often quote the Switzerland health care system as an example of tough questions that we as a nation will have to answer someday, if we go down the path of nationalized government health care plan. We’ll have to at some point draw the line in the sand and refuse further care for patients receiving critical illness treatments, intensive care unit, trauma care, acute management services, disease management, neonatal intensive-care unit for newborns and seniors in extended care treatment nearing hospice stage . Did you know that premature babies are not resuscitated upon birth if they cannot draw breath in Switzerland? Did you also know that holds true with “senior care” experiencing system failure or multiple organ failures requiring support? Another example, they don’t extend the life of a senior via medical equipment such as intubation or respiration for multiple organ failures. Not to be morbid….they are unplugged and allowed to pass. Anyone in the business of paying claims knows that the single most expensive bill in what carriers call “shock loss” is within NICU for newborns and seniors in acute / intensive care / hospital in the last three months of life.
The Swiss apparently made decisions made based upon cost vs. quality outcome. Are we as a nation prepared to make that type of decision or to define when to incubate, resuscitate a newborn or a senior? Are we ready to define the conditions and rules of medical procedures with organ failure? With a litigious society I think not. This is why we need TORT REFORM. Without TORT REFORM medical provider costs will never drop. Liability costs with medical providers are nearly half of operating expenses. Humana health plans state that their costs of medical liability and defensive medicine accounts for nearly 10 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Compare that to Humana’s reported pharmaceutical claims of 15 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Or better yet, 21 cents out of every premium dollar collected is paid back to physicians for physician treatments. The cost of litigation is only obvious with Humana health plans. I sit on the board with several other health insurance carriers. Their books all show similar costs. They basically insure a shrinking populace that is mostly made up of people that only buy insurance because they need it. So is mandatory participation such a bad idea?
I don’t think we are hearing about TORT REFORM because most of the house and senate on the federal level are lawyers and have practicing law firm interest’s. In the healthcare system there is no total innocence. We hear about insurance executives with bonuses, doctors overbilling, hospitals overbilling because the street gang thug got dropped at their ER door with no insurance. The lawyers are there to stir the pot and promise lavish fortune at the end of the PERCEIVED misery chain. Am I saying we don’t need them? No, but I am saying there is clear and documented abuse of the legal system that awards outlandish claims in the millions for a questionable mistake. Are ambulance chasers not sociably recognized as being the most abusive? What about those that educate their clients on defraud and then use the legal system to pirate insurers?
I sure wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of these serious decisions that we will have to make. My senator claims that the government would be held blameless but what about the medical provider that has to make the call? What about the insurance payer that has to deny continued care for an infant that will not survive? Without serious TORT REFORM we aren’t going to get costs down or have good people make headway.
Al Franken, comedian, political commentator, and Saturday Night Live alumnus, has come to the end of the intense battle over whether or not he won election to the U.S. Senate from his home state of Minnesota. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared Franken the winner of the race, after it was contested by incumbent Norm Coleman that the election wasn’t conclusive. It isn’t known if Coleman intends to appeal the decision to federal courts, which could tie up the seat in the Senate for longer, but Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has declared that he will back the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision, whatever it is, and Coleman will need a lot more fast cash to appeal his loss to Al Franken further