Nicholas Schaufelberger -

For the past few months, we have watched Democrats and Republicans duke it out on Capitol Hill over the biggest political question of the year: health care reform.

While both parties have stressed the need for such reform theoretically, the ways in which they want to go about it are completely different. The Democrats mainly want to expand coverage dramatically and then cut costs, whereas the Republicans want to make changes to the already existing system with the main purpose of cutting costs.

With the need to get more people covered by health care and the importance of cutting costs becoming more and more apparent, it is now necessary for the Democrats to get the bill passed despite the Republican filibuster. The statistics are overwhelming: in 2005, 40 million adults stated that they have needed health care service, but couldn’t afford it. Also, despite being the only industrialized nation without universal health care, the United States still spends more money on health care per capita than any other nation in the world, with costs that continue to increase, with an excessive amount of those costs associated with administra¬tive overhead.

Having the most expensive health care system in the world that still doesn’t cover all Americans demonstrates that the nation needs a major overhaul of the health care system.

The difference between Republican and Democratic plans for reform is mainly ideological, but only the Democrats have proposed major health care legislation. The Republicans, from the beginning of negotiations on the bill, have done nothing but obstruct the Democrats’ attempts to reform health care.

Even now, despite having an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Democrats are blocked on the issue with the Republican threat of a filibuster. The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for having failed to pass health care reform to date. Contrary to popular belief, the filibuster is not an unbeatable political obstacle and Democrats can defeat it.

The filibuster is essentially the right to unlimited debate on a bill in the Senate. It permits Senators to speak for as long as they wish on any topic, unless 60 Senators vote to end the debate. While this was originally intended to allow for more debate, in effect it has been used to block the enactment of legislation, contrary to the intention of the founding fathers.

There used to be a filibuster rule in the House of Representatives, however, it was terminated in 1842 due to the difficulty of passing any legislation in the House. In the Senate, the filibuster was never used widely due to the implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority. It was only after the filibuster was first used in the 1960s, in an attempt to block passage of the Civil Rights Act, that its use to block legislation became more commonplace. Nevertheless, the idea that a majority vote to change the rules of the Senate could be used to destroy the filibuster could still be effective today. Since it takes only a majority of Senators to invoke a point of order and change Senate rules, a simple majority of Senators could bar the use of the filibuster from Senate proceedings.

Why this hasn’t taken place, however, lies within Senate politics. The Democrats are unwilling to destroy any possibility of a filibuster, since they may want to use it themselves if they are ever in the Republicans’ position. More importantly, they are afraid that political backlash from destroying the filibuster could hurt their position.

The Democrats could also rely on the reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster. This would require a majority vote on any budget-related issues to pass health care reform. However, they refuse to attempt this due to fear for their own political careers. Simply put, the Democrats have no backbone. If the Republicans were in this position, they would definitely amend the rules to remove the filibuster, as they threatened to in 2005 until the Gang of 14 moderates negotiated a settlement. Had the Gang of 14 failed, the Republicans would have ended the filibuster in favor of getting their court candidates appointed.

This underscores the pointlessness of the Democrats trying to preserve the filibuster, since if Democrats ever try to use a filibuster to block proceedings, the Republicans will evoke a point of order and amend the rules. At this point, the necessity of getting health care legislation passed is important enough that the Democrats need to take a stand and force a point of order. Failing now would be more than just a political defeat; it would be a disaster for the American people.