Why 90 Seconds of Debate for Graham-Cassidy Is Plenty
Kelly Swanson, over at Vox, reports that before next week’s vote on the Senate’s Graham-Cassidy bill (the latest extraordinarily unpopular Republican effort to undo Obamacare), there will be just 90 seconds of debate on the Senate floor.
The reason, Swanson reports, is that the bill is not actually a bill, but rather an amendment to the “Better Care Reconciliation Act” (the extraordinarily unpopular Republican effort to undo Obamacare back in June). And since that original bill already got through a cloture vote, the Graham-Cassidy “amendment” is entitled to only limited debate. Got that?
Well, to all those who say that 90 seconds of debate—over legislation that could conceivably cause more than 30 million Americans to lose their health coverage—is not enough, I say, “Pshaw!”
[Editor’s Note: For readers 200 years of age or older, “Pshaw” means “Fiddlesticks,” “Zounds,” or, when accompanied by soup, “The Dickens!” For readers under 200 years of age, “Pshaw” has no actual meaning. Substitute with an emoji.]
As I was saying, Balderdash! And Poppycock, too! Ninety seconds is plenty of time for debate. Let’s start with the obvious: In the big bang, it took a mere 10-34 of a second—“a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second,” Space.com explains—“to double the size of the universe at least 90 times.” That’s science, people!
Not convinced?
Then, consider it took just 33 seconds for the Houston Rockets’ Tracy McGrady to score 13 points and beat the Spurs by one—in a 2004 heart-stopper that many call one of the greatest NBA comebacks in history. (So figure that one 90-second Senate debate could give us the equivalent of nearly three thrills of a lifetime—or two, if Rand Paul speaks.)
Finally, my colleague Brian O’Keefe points out that “Judy is a Punk,” by the Ramones, is 89 seconds long.
Take that, naysayers!
This essay appears in today’s edition of the Fortune Brainstorm Health Daily. Get it delivered straight to your inbox.
