Call the health vote

Via-Chicago Tribune


Republicans swept to control of the U.S. House in November with a bold promise that resonated with voters: "We are here because we heard the American people in the last election," says Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "We said we'd do a straight up-or-down vote to repeal this health care law and that's what we're doing."

Last week, the House voted for repeal, with all 242 Republicans and three Democrats in favor. Now the spotlight shifts to the Senate. Or, it should shift to the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, however, says no. He won't allow a vote on the repeal measure.

The bill wouldn't pass, Reid scoffs. Other Democrats brand the House vote as "symbolic" as if that were a synonym for "useless." It isn't. Symbols have power.

Reid may fear Democratic defectors, and he can't afford many with a 53-47 voting edge in the Senate and two dozen seats to defend in the 2012 election: Some red-state Dems might vote for repeal.

The health care law is in trouble, in the courts and in Congress. Repeal is the first Republican strategy. But Republican lawmakers are also moving to cut its funding and peel away key parts of the law.

Democrats said Americans would love it when they understood it. They understand it now. But many don't believe a big new entitlement will curb health costs or improve care. They don't love it. Never did. Probably never will. And they didn't like the way Reid & Co. jammed it through Congress without one Republican vote.

Remember, in late 2009, when Reid was desperate to corral votes for this gargantuan bill? Thus was born the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback," Reid's $100 million inducement to Sen. Ben Nelson's Nebraska. And the equally notorious "Louisiana Purchase," another $100 million for Medicaid in Sen. Mary Landrieu's state. And "U.Con," $100 million for a medical center in Sen. Chris Dodd's Connecticut.

Those were some of the nicknames for the seedy backroom deals Reid cut to secure the 60 votes he needed in the Senate. Special favors were also doled out to Vermont, Massachusetts, Montana, Iowa, Michigan and Florida.

Still, Reid is right. A Senate vote to repeal probably would fail. Even if it passed, President Barack Obama would veto it. So then … why not vote?

A couple of weeks ago, a National Public Radio anchor asked Reid: "If you have the votes, why not let it come to a vote?"

Reid's answer: "Because I think it's important that people understand that we do not think we got perfection with this legislation. We want to try to improve it. We don't want to try to destroy it."

Translation: Election? What election?

Allowing a repeal vote would let citizens — many of whom abhor this exorbitantly expensive health care entitlement — to see who in Washington follows their wishes. And who doesn't.

Reid's blockade invites voters to tap Democrats on the shoulder even more forcefully in 2012. That's why we have elections. To send politicians to Washington to do what constituents demand.

No, we don't favor a complete repeal of the law. We've said repeatedly that we'd rather see a scaled-down, market-driven law that still provides expanded access to health care.

But first things first: Reid ignored public opinion in the rush to pass this massive expansion. Now he's repeating the same grievous mistake.

Come on, Sen. Reid. Call the vote. What are you afraid of?