Menu
The Goodman Institute Health Blog
  • Home
  • Authors
    • Devon Herrick, Ph.D.
    • John C. Goodman
  • Popular Topics
    • Hits & Misses
    • Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare
    • Doctors & Hospitals
      • COVID-19 and Public Health
    • Policy & Legislation
      • Affordable Care Act
    • Health Economics & Costs
      • Cost of Healthcare
      • Drug Prices & Regulations
      • Health Reform
    • Health Insurance
      • Public Insurance
      • Medicare
    • Telemedicine
      • Medical Tourism
  • Goodman Institute
  • Contact
  • Search
The Goodman Institute Health Blog

The SAVE America Act isn’t worth ending the Senate filibuster

Posted on March 17, 2026 by Merrill Matthews

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters after a weekly Republican luncheon, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 10, 2026. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)


Republican President Calvin Cooledge (1923-29) once said, “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.” That statement is as true today as it was then. Maybe even more so, because progressives in Congress can introduce some really bad bills. And if Senate Republicans were to end the Senate filibuster, the next time Democrats control the Senate (which could be as soon as January) the public will learn just how bad progressive legislation can be.

And yet President Trump and his MAGA camp are pushing to end the filibuster if that’s what it takes to pass the SAVE America Act. Regardless of how important you might think the act is, it’s not worth ending the filibuster.

First, a quick primer on the filibuster. Unlike the House of Representatives, senators historically had the right of unlimited debate. And in the 1800s, they occasionally exercised that right to postpone or quash a vote on a bill or nomination. By 1917, frustration over unlimited debate led President Woodrow Wilson (D) to propose changing Senate rules to allow a “cloture” vote — two-thirds of those present — to end debate, which became Senate Rule 22. In 1975 the Senate changed the number to three-fifths (60) of all senators.

Today there’s the “talking filibuster” and the “silent filibuster.” Senators can still talk for as long as they can hold up, and some have. But since the 1970s, they have typically used the silent filibuster to prevent ending debate, thereby killing a bill. There is some conjecture that implementing a talking filibuster might allow the Senate to vote on the bill without a cloture vote. But it’s a very complicated process and might fail, according to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.).

Because the Senate is so evenly divided along party lines, several members of the minority party have to agree to end debate. That’s an important check on the majority party’s ability to force a bill through.

Read the full article on TheHill.com

 

 

 

 

Join the conversation.Cancel reply

For many years, our health care blog was the only free enterprise health policy blog on the internet. Then, when the NCPA closed its doors, the health blog stopped as well.

During this five-year hiatus no one else has come forward to claim the space. So, my colleagues and I have decided to restart the blog in connection with the Goodman Institute. We invite you and others to use this forum to share your views.

John C. Goodman,

Visit www.goodmaninstitute.org

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 42 other subscribers

Popular Topics

©2026 The Goodman Institute Health Blog | Website by Lexicom