Copyright 2009 Lee Tilson lee.tilson@gmail.com
Prominent Republicans openly criticize what they anticipate will be swift action by health care reformers. According to the critics, the large price tag and the importance of the underlying issues require careful evaluation. Republican Chairman Michael Steele complains:
“I'm a little bit bothered by the pace. I've said from the very beginning that it is in the best interest of the nation, but most especially in the best interest of the doctor/patient relationship, that we take our time, be deliberate and do it right.''
According to Roll Call, Senator McConnell compared the health care bill to other “big ticket” pieces of legislation from the past decade requiring eight weeks to resolve. He warned:
“[W]e’re going to have a real Senate debate over efforts to restructure one-sixth of our economy ... this needs to be handled in such a way as to reassure the American people. Only after that process, in my view, would the majority have any chance of selling this to a highly skeptical public.”
McConnell promised to slow the legislation. He told reporters that he would insist on a “couple of months” of debate before finalizing the legislation.
Who is right, the reformers or their critics? Are the reformers moving too quickly? Are these criticisms warranted? When is reform “too fast” or “too slow”? When can we say that change is occurring at “all deliberate speed”?
Let's consider Senator McConnell's suggestion and compare this decision to other “big ticket” pieces of legislation from the past decade. What legislative acts during the last ten years have cost similar amounts? Have any had the potential, like the decision on health care, to make the difference between life or death? What “big ticket items” has Congress enacted in the past decade?
In answering those questions, four pieces of legislation stand out as being candidates for “big ticket” status:
Authorization for the Iraq Invasion,
The 2001 Bush Tax Cut,
The 2003 Bush Tax Cut, and
The massive economic bailout of the fall of 2008.
The decision to invade Iraq is a “big ticket” item by any standard. The highly publicized Bush Tax Cuts cost upwards of a trillion dollars. The Senate vote on the second tax cut required the vote of the Vice President to break a tie. These three pieces of legislation seem reasonable candidates for evaluation: the two Bush Tax Cuts and the Authorization to Invade Iraq..
The economic bailout of Fall 2008 will not be included in the analysis below for two reasons. First, the perceived economic emergency at the time could be cited as justification for its rapid passage, representing an exception rather than a benchmark or guideline. Second, the bailout cost significantly less than either the Iraq War or Bush Tax Cuts.
"Big Ticket" Items: Iraq and Tax Cuts
By examining these three “big ticket” legislative items from the last three years, we should be able to determine:
A. How much time does it take for Congress to “do it right?
B. How much evidence does it take for Congress to “do it right?”
Once the amount of time and evidence Congress needs has been determined, we can examine how the time and effort devoted to health care reform compares.
A. How much time does it take for Congress to “do it right?”
Authority to Invade Iraq: 9 Days
How long did it take the 107th Congress to “do it right” on the Iraq Invasion?
The Iraq Invasion was authorized by H.J.RES.114. According to the online records of the Library of Congress, H.J.RES.114 was processed through Congress in a total of nine days, from October 2, 2002, to October 11, 2002. The bill spent five days in a committee of the House of Representatives, was on the floor of the House for three days, and was on the floor of the US Senate for less than a day. (See “Iraq Footnote” below.) Nine days elapsed between the introduction of the bill that authorized the Iraq Invasion and its final passage by Congress.
(For details, see “Iraq Footnote” below. Alternately, you may go to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html, search for Bill Number H.J.RES.114, and click on "All Congressional Actions").
First Bush Tax Cut: 11 Days
How long did it take for the 107th Congress to "do it right" on the First Bush Tax Cut?
The First Bush Tax Cut was passed in H.R.1836. According to the online records of the Library of Congress, H.R.1836 was processed through Congress in eleven days. It was introduced, assigned to committee, reported from committee and approved by the House in just two days. Five days passed as the bill awaited consideration by the Senate. Within two days of consideration, the Senate approved its version of the bill. Three days after Senate approval, a Conference Report was issued and approved by both the Senate and the House.
A total of eleven days passed between the bill's introduction and its passing both houses of Congress.
(To confirm, go to “First Bush Tax Cut Footnote” below. Alternately, you may go to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html, search for Bill Number H.R.1836, and click on "All Congressional Actions").
Second Bush Tax Cut: 10 Days (or 85 Days?)
How long did it take for the 108th Congress to "do it right" on the Second Bush Tax Cut? H.R.2 enacted the Second Bush Tax Cut. According to the online records of the Library of Congress, it was introduced on February 27, 2003, and gained approval of both houses of Congress eighty five days later on May 23, 2003. However, the version of the bill that passed was first introduced by Senator Grassley on May 13, 2003, ten days before the bill was passed.
After its February 27 introduction, H.R.2 was the subject of committee hearings on March 4, 5, 6, and 11, 2003, was reported to the House on May 6, 2003, and passed by the House three days later on Friday, May 9, 2003. Received in the Senate on Monday, May 12, 2003, H.R.2 underwent an amendment described by the Library of Congress as:
“Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S.1054 amended.”
The language of H.R.2 approved by the House was gone. In its place was the language of Senator Grassley's S.1054 that had been introduced on May 13. Later on the 15th, the Senate approved its new version of H.R.2 on a 51 to 49 vote. A week later, on May 22, a Conference Committee issued its report. The following day, May 23, both houses of Congress approved the Conference Committee report. The vote in the Senate was 51-50 with the Vice President breaking the tie.
Ten days passed between the introduction of the actual language of what became H.R.2 and its final passage both houses of Congress. Including the seventy five days before the bill was gutted on the floor of the Senate, a total of eighty five days elapsed between the introduction of H.R.2 and its ultimate passage by Congress.
The margin of victory could not have been narrower: 51 to 50.
The actual language of the bill was introduced on May 13, 2003, and passed on May 23, 2003, ten days later. I have not been able to find any committee hearings on the language of the bill that passed. Debate on this “big ticket” bill was at most a day or two, far less than the “two months” Senator McConnell now demands for health care reform with its smaller price tag.
(To confirm, go to “Second Bush Tax Cut Footnote” below. Alternately, you may go to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html, search for "Bill Number" H.R.2, and click on "All Congressional Actions")
How long has Congress considered “big ticket” items in the past ten years?
Time in Congress from introduction to final passage
Average for 3 bills = 35 days, if we count 85 days for H.R.2.
Average for 3 bills = 10 days if we count the 10 days that the actual language of H.R.2 was before the Senate.
Time in House of Representatives before passage
Average time in committee = 23 days
Average time on floor of House = 1 - 2 days
Time in Senate before passage
Average time in Senate before going to floor = 2-3 days
Average time on Senate floor before passage = 2- 3 days
Time in Conference Committee
Average time = 3 to 4 days
Time of Debate on Floor of Senate
Between 0 and 3 days given the time the bills were on the floor of the Senate.
Note: The Iraq bill passed the same day it was presented to the Senate, October 11, 2001. The First Bush Tax Cut was considered by the Senate on May 21, 2001, and passed two days later on the 23rd. The Second Bush Tax Cut was received by the Senate on May 12, 2003, and passed on May 15, 2003. The language of the bill was completely replaced on May 15, the day that it was passed by the Senate. Even if we assume that the Senate did nothing other than consider this one bill, the time devoted to it on the Senate floor was less than three days.
These “big ticket” items received less than three days of consideration on the floor of the Senate.
Following Senator McConnell's suggestion, using the time guidelines of the consideration given to other “big ticket” items of legislation in the prior decade, Congress would need to spend at least ten days total (or 35 days if we count the time before the actual language of H.R.2 became part of the bill) on health care reform to meet his standard. None of the three bills was debated for as many as four days. Senator McConnell's suggestion that “big ticket” items require even so much as a week of consideration is a standard that was not followed during the Bush Administration.
Has Long Has Congress Worked on Health Care Reform?
Does Congress' Work meet Sen. McConnell's 10 Day Standard?
How does the health care reform effort compare with the ten days Congress averaged on “big ticket” items during the Bush Administration? Has Congress considered health care reform as much as the 10 days given to the “big ticket” items during the Bush Administration? Has health care reform been on the floor of the House or Senate for the few days accorded the “big ticket” items during the Bush Administration? A review of the history is in order.
History of Health care Reform
History shows that the health care reforms before Congress have been considered repeatedly, if not continuously, for many decades. While intense efforts to pass national health insurance began in earnest in the 1930's in a Democratic administration, Republican leadership first raised and championed health care reform.
That movement's history includes the following:
a. President Theodore Roosevelt advocated this health care reform in 1912, ninety-seven years ago. He included it in the platform for his presidential campaign.
b. Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, former AMA President, Stanford President and Republican Secretary of the Interior, convened a blue ribbon committee in 1927. Five years and 28 volumes later, the majority of the Wilbur committee supported health care reform. (See “DR. RAY LYMAN WILBUR ERA LINKS (1927–32)” below.)
c. President Franklin Roosevelt pushed for health care reform in the mid-1930's. Two statements he issued prompted eight Congressional hearings in 1939. (See “PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT ERA LINKS" below.)
d. President Harry Truman's pitched battle for health care reform produced several sets of lengthy congressional hearings (36 hearings in 1946, 17 hearings in 1947, and 23 more hearings in 1949). When the AMA successfully blocked the legislation, Truman appointed the Magnuson committee to study and report on the issue. (See “PRESIDENT HARRY TRUMAN ERA LINKS” below.)
e. President Eisenhower was not able to pass what his version of health care reform described as “re insurance” for the uninsured, despite 19 hearings held in 1954. During Eisenhower's presidency, health care benefits were extended to federal employees and military dependents. At the end of his second term, Congress made some medical services available for the indigent.
e. President Kennedy supported health care reform and insurance reform for seniors.
f. With much effort, President Johnson enacted Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. To honor Truman's efforts, he arranged to sign the bill in front of President Truman, and to give Truman and his wife the first two Medicare cards.
g. Activity on health care reforms was high during the Nixon Administration. Recommendations included a proposal ensuring that Americans would not have to pay more for health care than they could afford.
In 1970, Congress held eight hearings on the high cost of hospitalization and two hearings on National health insurance. Congressional Research Service prepared three reports on national health insurance.
In 1971, Congress held nineteen hearings on the health care crisis, twenty four more on national health insurance, and eight on physician training and HMO's. Several reports were performed by the Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Services.
In 1972, Congress held fifteen hearings on HMO's and directed the preparation of several reports on national health insurance.
In 1973, Congress held six hearings on the implications of national health insurance, and still more on reorganization and oversight of government health programs.
In 1974, Congress held seventeen days of hearings on national health insurance and fourteen more on health planning. It directed the production of four important reports on health care reform.
h. President Gerald Ford proposed reforms to reduce inequities, but did not propose universal health care While Ford was President, Congress remained active.
In 1975, Congress held twenty five hearings on health care reforms, eight additional hearings on health insurance for the unemployed, and directed production of two additional reports on its proposals.
In 1976, Congress held three hearings on health care costs, two on maternal child health care, twenty two hearings on national health insurance, six on rural health, and directed production of reports and a resource manual prepared by the Congressional services
i. President Jimmy Carter proposed national health insurance and other measures to slow medical inflation. During the Carter Administration, Congress held hearings on maternal and child health care, the urban health crisis, the impact of Medicaid cutbacks on the elderly, catastrophic health insurance, and ordered many reports on national health insurance. At least sixteen hearings were held on national health insurance during the Carter Administration.
j. The Reagan Administration proposed measures to slow the growth of health care costs. Congress studied the impact of the cutbacks on infant care, the approach taken to health care in other countries and issued a number of reports. In the last year of the Reagan Presidency, Congress held nine hearings on the future of health care in America and had the major Congressional services issue reports on the uninsured.
k. During the Administration of President George H. W. Bush, consideration was given to proposals for comprehensive reforms including affordable access and availability for seniors to long term care. Congress held hearings on the pending health care crisis, comprehensive health care insurance, the uninsured, problems with access to health care, long term health care strategies, the Canadian health care system, whether women were treated as second class health care consumers, the impact of health care reforms on small business, lessons of catastrophic care, the impact of managed care on health care costs, the impact of reform on tax issues, and other subjects. Twenty eight such hearings were held in 1991 and eleven more in 1992.
l. President Bill Clinton made health care reform a centerpiece of his agenda, and invested tremendous energy into his reform package. In 1993, over thirty hearings were held on health care reform alone. The Congressional services carefully researched a variety of subjects ranging from Congress' authority to enact reform to a single payer approach to health care insurance. In 1994 over 35 hearings on reform were convened covering subjects from the impact of reform on employment to the military, and from the views of the states on the reforms to consumer decision making. Republican control of Congress ended the President's ability to initiate these reforms. Congress remained active on health care, studying a crisis with Medicare, applications of new technologies for processing medical information, and patient safety.
m. President George W. Bush offered proposals for innovative solutions to many of the problems resulting from the spiraling cost of health care, and passed a prescription drug benefit. Congress continued studying patient safety, new technologies, health care trends and the so called “safety net.”
n. In January 2007, the Democrats' regaining control of the House of Representatives reinvigorated the legislative drive on health care. Between January 1, 2007, and July 1, 2009, 79 hearings were held in the House of Representatives on these health care issues. Additional hearings have been held since July 1 in the House, and hearings have been held in the Senate. ( http://majorityleader.gov/docUploads/HCHouseEvents070809.pdf)
o. Throughout this time, Congress has probably held thousands of hearings on the general subject of health care, and hundreds of hearings on the narrower subject of national health insurance. It has ordered studies by leading agencies, given birth to dozens of new federal agencies and efforts, and overseen and funded the operations of the government in the sphere of health care. The agenda of health care reform has made inroads by providing health care to cover military dependents, federal employees, senior citizens, the poor, and adding prescription drug benefits for seniors. The federal government has nurtured the growth of the health care system by activities from dedicating land to the National Institutes of Health to enacting HIPAA and COBRA. Developed over the past century, Congress' knowledge and expertise regarding our health care infrastructure is unparalleled.
p. An historical perspective undermines the claim that the health care reform movement is a partisan issue. President Theodore Roosevelt brought this issue to national prominence. The movement's first champion, Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, an AMA president, meticulously laid the groundwork for later generations with his twenty eight volume study funded by eight foundations. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman fought for reform. Eisenhower (though he described it as “reinsurance”) and Nixon worked to expand availability of health care services. Eisenhower advocated reinsurance for the uninsured and presided over expanding health care to federal employees, military dependents, and the medically indigent. George W. Bush signed a senior prescription drug benefit into law. All of these Republicans have played important roles in the movement.
The opposition to health care reform does not belong to the entire Republican Party. Since health care reform became a national issue, most Republican presidents have supported and advanced reforms. That reform has been championed by so many Republican presidents and other prominent Republicans undermines the argument that the reform offends some core philosophical tenet of the Republican Party. The opposition to health care reform has found a home in the Senate Republicans. Could the explanation of Congress' having become an obstacle to reform be structural? Could it be that the structure of Congress enables those who profit from the health care system to block reform there?
Health Care Reform Legislation vs. Recent “Big Ticket” Items
“Do it right!”
Senator McConnell's criticism of the reform movement is unusual. The suggestion that the advocates fail to live up to the standards followed in the previous decade is refuted by a cursory review of the history. Under the prior administration, “big ticket” items received virtually no consideration.
Few issues before Congress deserved more thoughtful deliberation than the war in Iraq. It appears that war will cost a trillion dollars. More importantly, that declaration of war put Americans and foreigners in harm's way. History was redirected. Our global relationships were changed profound ways. No act of Congress in the last ten years required thoughtful consideration more than the authorization to invade Iraq (H.J.Res.114). Yet, the legislation to authorize the invasion was before Congress nine days before approval. There was virtually no debate in the Senate. The bill was both laid before the Senate and passed by the Senate on the same day, October 11, 2001.
Where was the demand for thoughtful debate? Where was the insistence to “do it right”?
It took eleven days to pass the first Bush Tax Cut? Where was the two month debate that McConnell suggest is necessary for “big ticket” items?
Chairman Steele and Senator McConnell complain loudly about these health reform bills being written in “back rooms.” Does that principle apply to the 2003 Senate's performing an end run around the House of Representatives by summarily replacing H.R.2 with another bill days after it was introduced?
The Second Bush Tax Cut was larger than the cost of the Iraq war, the current health care reform bill, or the fall 2008 economic bailout. Yet the Second Bush Tax Cut required Vice President Cheney's vote to pass the Senate, 51-50. Was that an example of bipartisanship? If big ticket items require bipartisanship, why would Vice President Cheney consider voting on them? H.R.2 was approved by both houses of Congress ten days after the language was introduced.
Let's count the days. How does this ten day standard under the Bush Administration compare with the number of days health care reform has been considered?
Since Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 Campaign: 97 years = 35,308 days
Since Dr Ray Lyman Wilbur convened the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care:
82 years = 30,111 days
Since Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur spoke at the Milbank Annual Dinner in support of health care reform: 77 years = 28,342 days
(See: The Milbank Quarterly, Volume 83, p 523-536)
Since Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur's committee, the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, finished its four-year, 28 volume study on December 4, 1932, as was reported in the New York Times: 76 years = 28,080 days
Since FDR sent his July 15, 1938 message to Congress supporting health care reform : 71 years = 26,031 days
Since the April 27,1939, the date of one of the first Congressional hearings on health care reform: 70 years = 25,745 days
Since Harry Truman's November 19, 1945, message to Congress supporting reform:
64 years = 23, 347 days
Since Truman's April 30, 1946 letter to Senator Murray concerning a Bill for a National Health Program: 63 years = 23,185 days
Since July 6, 1949, the date of one of the last Congressional hearings on health care reform during the FDR – Truman era: 60 years = 22,022 days
Plus another sixty years of work outlined above.
By 1932, Dr. Wilbur's committee had put forth more effort studying health care reform than was invested in all of the three “big ticket” items (Iraq Invasion and two Bush Tax Cuts) of the past decade. It appears that since President Roosevelt's 1938 message to Congress, more effort has been devoted to health care reform in each of the following seventy one years than the sum total of all the work Congress devoted to “big ticket” items in the past ten years.
WHICH IS LARGER: TEN OR THIRTY-THOUSAND ?
During the past ten years, while Republicans were in power, “big ticket” items were considered by Congress for ten days. Now, Republican Chairman Steele and Senator McConnell, whose party followed a “ten day” standard, criticize health care reformers for the lack of time devoted to health care reform effort, a period that has lasted over thirty thousand days? Which number is larger: a. ten, b. thirty thousand?
B. How much evidence does it take for Congress to “do it right?”
We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction. Congress might have arrived at this conclusion had it devoted more than nine days to H.J.Res.114, e.g. by holding hearings. The evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was contrived. There was no evidence that could survive analysis.
If there had been evidence supporting the Bush Tax Cuts, Congress didn't take enough time to discover it. The First Bush Tax Cut passed eleven days after introduction. The Second Bush Tax Cut, passed ten days after the language was replaced on the floor of the Senate, had the designation of H.R.2. Four hearings had been held on another bill with the same designation two months before the language of the bill was replaced. Whatever evidence supported these “big ticket” items in the Bush Administration can be generously described as “limited” at best. Let's compare this evidence with the quantity of evidence considered on health care reform.
As recounted above, the volume of evidence considered on health care reform is staggering. Dr. Wilbur's distinguished fifty member committee issued twenty eight volumes of study by 1932. Congress has commissioned study after study on virtually every aspect of health care since then.
An initial review of the Congressional record identifies literally hundreds of hearings on some version of national health insurance. In addition to the extensive Congressional record outlined above, the volume of information available is large.
A cursory review of the other information sources identifies:
a. 29,000 medical articles on the subject since 1950 identified by PubMed, the online database of medical articles maintained by the National Library of Medicine.
(Search www.pubmed.gov for "health care reform" OR "health care reform" OR "universal health care" OR "universal health care" OR "single payer" OR "health care costs" OR uninsured OR "health care delivery system" OR "private insurance" LIMITED TO ENGLISH.)
b. Many thousands, likely over 10,000 (see below), NIH grants funding research on our health care system. The NIH's CRISP database contains many thousands of NIH funded grants on the same.
(Search http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generate_screen, "reimbursement" identified 1425 NIH grants, "underserved" identified 8435 grants, “social AND disparities” identified 3652 grants, "health care delivery system" identified 349 grants, "health care delivery" identified 1754 NIH grants)
c. More than 1700 items on “health care reform” identified by a very basic search of the Library of Congress online catalog. (Search http://catalog.loc.gov/webvoy.htm for "health care reform" )
d. Over 12,000 books result from that simple search “health care reform” on Amazon.
Simplistic searches uncover enormous amounts of evidence. The items above are the tip of an iceberg. Reviewing them would require lifetimes to read.
The health care reform advocates are being told that more work needs to be done to “do it right.” Apparently this impressive amount of work done on health care reform is insufficient. How much evidence for reform is enough? Where can we look for guidance on how much evidence needs to be collected before reform can be enacted?
Using Senator McConnell's standard, we should look to how much evidence was required for “big ticket” items in the past ten years. Estimation of the evidence in the field of economics supporting the massive Bush Tax Cuts is beyond the scope of this essay. Let us consider the evidence cited for invading Iraq: the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. How much evidence was there? We now know that the evidence was a small amount of misinformation.
How does the small amount of misinformation on weapons of mass destruction compare to the quantity of evidence amassed on health care reform since Dr. Wilbur convened his committee? The imbalance in quantities of evidence is larger than the imbalance between 30,000 days and 10 days. Steele and Mcconnell's criticisms are, at least, unusual.
These criticisms that the health care reform effort requires more time and consideration does not match the historical record. This is especially true when the health care reform effort is compared to other “big ticket” items in the past ten years as Senator McConnell has suggested. The quantity of work devoted by Congress and others to health care reform dwarfs the work Congress has invested in significant bills in the past decade.
The criticism has no credibility. It is difficult to believe that informed politicians could make it in good faith.
REFERENCES
GENERAL REFERENCES FOR AN OVERVIEW
New York Times time line
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/us/politics/20090717_HEALTH_TIMELINE.html?scp=1&sq=health caree%20timeline&st=cse
Cleveland timetable
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/08/national_health_care_debate_ha.html
Chronology that starts with FDR
http://tinyurl.com/health care-history-chronology
Falk overview
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1551725&blobtype=pdf
Online overview
http://www.usm.edu/ethicsjournal/index.php/ojhe/article/viewFile/1/2
2006 Article The Impact of Health Plan Delivery
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1797097&blobtype=pdf 2002
Health for Three Third of a Nation Alan Deirckson
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1447037&blobtype=pdf 2002
Overview of history from 1920's Ross et al http://www.einstein.yu.edu/uploadedFiles/EJBM/19Ross129.pdf
Article on IS Falk, member of Wilbur's Committee
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646349/pdf/amjph00284-0027.pdf
Kaiser historical overview
http://healthreform.kff.org/flash/health-reform-new.html http://healthreform.kff.org/
DR. RAY LYMAN WILBUR ERA LINKS (1927–32)
former President of AMA, President of Stanford Univ., Pres. Hoover's Sec'y of Interior Suggestion:for more information, search “Ray Lyman Wilbur” or “Committee on the Cost(s) of Medical Care” ,
1932 Wilbur Speech
http://www.milbank.org/quarterly/830401wilbur.pdf
NY Times 1932 – Release of Wilbur Report
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flash/health/HEALTHCARE_TIMELINE/1932_medicine_socialized.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1655770&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1655771&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1517287&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=381566&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=402728&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1658611&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2623705&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1501729&blobtype=pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1522712&blobtype=pdf
Books by Wilbur's Committee on the Costs of Medical Care
http://openlibrary.org/a/OL2010416A/Committee_on_the_Cost_of_Medical_Care.
http://www.amazon.com/Medical-care-American-people-Committee/dp/0405039441
http://tinyurl.com/ylozrfu
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT ERA LINKS
Presidential statements:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15519
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15699
Congressional Hearings in 1939 April 27, May 4, 5, 11, 12 June 2 29 July 13
PRESIDENT HARRY TRUMAN ERA LINKS
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12288
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12642
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12849
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13170
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12892
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13440
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13816
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78369
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14007
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14382
Hearings during the Truman years
Dates of Congressional hearings in 1946
Apr. 2-5, 9-11, 16-19, 22-26, 30, May 1-3, 6, 7, 22-24, 28, 29, 31, June 18, 20, 21, 24-27, July 10, 1946
Dates of Congressional hearings in 1947
May 21-23, 28, 29, June 4-6,25-27, July 2, 3, 9-11, 23, 1947,
Dates of Congressional hearings in 1949
May 20, 23-25, 31, June 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17, 21-24 ,27-29, 30, July 6, 1949
Iraq Footnote
How long did it take Congress to “do it right” on the authorization to invade Iraq? The Iraq Invasion was authorized by H.J.RES.114. According to the online records of the Library of Congress, H.J.RES.114 was processed through Congress as follows:
H.J.RES.114 was introduced on Wednesday, October 2, 2002,
Referred to committee on Wednesday, October 2, 2002,
Reported out of committee on Monday, October 7, 2002,
Debated on the floor of the House from Monday, October 7, 2002, through 3 PM Thursday, October 10, 2002
Passed the House of Representatives on October 10, 2002,
Was laid before the Senate on October 11, 2002,
Was approved by the Senate on October 11, 2002, and
Was cleared for the White House on October 11, 2002.
(Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html, search for Bill Number H.J.RES.114, and click on "All Congressional Actions").
First Bush Tax Cut Footnote
How long did it take Congress to “do it right” on the tax cut? The First Bush Tax Cut was passed in H.R.1836. According to the online records of the Library of Congress, H.R.1836 was processed as follows:
H.R.1836 was introduced on Tuesday, May 15, 2001,
Referred to committee on Tuesday, May 15, 2001,
Reported out of committee on on Tuesday, May 15, 2001,
Passed by the House on Wednesday, May 16, 2001,
Laid before the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2001,
Considered by the Senate on Monday, May 21, 2001,
Various motions made to commit bill to Senate Finance Committee and to waive provisions of Budget Act during the three days from Monday,
May 21, 2001, to Wednesday, May 23, 2001,
Passed by the Senate Wednesday, May 23, 2001,
Senate and House appoint conferees, Wednesday, May 23, 2001,
Conference report issued, Saturday, May 26, 2001,
House approves conference report, Saturday, May 26, 2001,
Senate approves conference report, Saturday, May 26, 2001,
Cleared for the White House, Saturday, May 26, 2001,
(Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html, search for Bill Number H.R.1836, and click on "All Congressional Actions"). According to this source, the bill authorizing the First Bush Tax Cut passed eleven days after its introduction.
Second Bush Tax Cut Footnote
How long did it take for the 108th Congress to "do it right" on the next Bush Tax Cut?
H.R.2 enacted the Second Bush Tax Cut. According to the online records of the Library of Congress, H.R.2 was processed through Congress in eighty five days. On May 15, 2003, after the bill had been before Congress for seventy five days, the language of the H.R.2 was gutted and replaced by the language of a bill Senator Grassley had introduced two days earlier. Here is a chronology of the major events.
H.R.2 was introduced and referred to committee on February 27, 2003,
Hearings held in House committee on a number of bills including H.R.2 on March 4, 5, 6, and 11, 2003,
H.R.2 was marked up by the committee on Tuesday, May 6, 2003,
H.R.2 was reported out of committee on Thursday, May 8, 2003,
H.R.2 was then reported to the House with Rules Committee Resolution 227 providing for 1 hr. debate on H.R.2 on Thursday, May 8, 2003,
H.Res.227 passed House at 11:21 AM Friday, May 9, 2003,
H.R.2 passed House at 2:30 PM Friday, May 9, 2003,
H.R.2 was received in Senate on Monday, May 12, 2003,
Senator Grassley introduced, and the Senate Finance Committee ordered S.1054 to be treated as original measure on Tuesday, May 13, 2003,
S.1054 laid before Senate by unanimous consent Wed., May 14, 2003,
Senate struck language in H.R.2 after Enacting Clause and replaced it with language of S. 1054 on Thursday, May 15, 2003,
H.R.2 passed Senate 51 - 49 on Thursday, May 15, 2003,
Senate insistd on its amendments and appointed 7 senators to conference committee on Thursday, May 15, 2003,
Message sent to House of Senate action on Tuesday, May 20, 2003,
House disagreed with amendments and appointed 3 Representatives to conference committee on Thursday, May 22, 2003,
Conference report filed on Thursday, May 22, 2003.
Conference report passed House on Friday, May 23, 2003.
Conference report passed Senate, 51-50, Friday, May 23 2003.
Bill cleared for White House, Friday, May 23, 2003.
(To confirm, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html, search for "Bill Number" H.R.2, and click on "All Congressional Actions") Eighty five days passed between the bill's being introduced and its passing both houses of Congress.
Ten days passed between the introduction of the languate of S.1054 which became H.R.2 and Congressional approval of that language as law.
Health care: Do it right” Copyright 2009 Lee Tilson lee.tilson@gmail.com
http://rethinkingpatientsafety.typepad.com/my-blog/
