October 08, 2009
Health Care Reform: Couldn't Be Done
So many pundits from Right and Left along the way have said Health Care Reform could not be done. They appear poised to be proven wrong. The recent polling showing Democrats neck and neck with Republicans for a take over in the House in 2010, has put the fear of reelection in many of the Blue Dog Democrats. Even in the Senate, the prospect of having to work with a Republican House is driving moderate Democrats to find those compromises that will permit health care reform to pass. The Democrats know they must have a success in this matter if they are to hold the House next year.
The Public Option may have appeared dead to some, but, it was just a head fake. The majority of Americans now want the competition and the safety net the Public Option will provide, which no other plan, even a bipartisan plan, can match for protection by most middle class voters. So, why isn't the Public Option in the Senate proposal? Politics, my dear Watson, politics. The House and Senate now have something to barter with each other. The Senate wants a deficit neutral bill which no House bill provides. The House wants the Public Option which isn't in the Senate bill.
The majority of Democrats in both Houses had given up on a bipartisan bill passing some time ago. Therefore, they needed an path toward a reconciliation bill (one that could pass through the Senate on 51 votes), which both the House and Senate reconciliation committee members could agree upon. That path now appears to be have been found and struck as a bargain between House and Senate Democrats. Which, along with the recent polls, puts public voter sights squarely on the Republicans if they march lock step in opposing any health care reform.
Having achieved a path toward a reconciliation bill that could pass with a majority of public approval, the Democrats and Obama have effectively, if not intentionally, forced some name recognition Republicans to publicly state their support for passage of a health care reform bill this year. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me) is reported to have said she hopes the voices of these other Republicans in support will resonate, clearly indicating her continued interest in being a bipartisan vote for health care reform, despite rumors a few weeks ago that all potential Republican support had evaporated.
The pace of the bill's progress is speeding up, and Americans may very likely see the passage of a health care reform bill before year's end, putting Republicans in a box, damned if they do support the bill and damned if they don't, come 2010 elections. Having put forth their best shot at preventing health care reform in Democrat's favor, some Republican's like Bob Dole are coming out and saying the effort failed, and it is time to get on board. Bob Dole's comments are reported on yesterday:
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kans.) told reporters on Wednesday that opposition to the president's health care package was driven, in part, by knee-jerk partisanship and he urged Congressional Republicans to consider backing a version of reform.No doubt a result of getting flack from Republican opponents to health care reform, Dole's spokesperson later attempted to backtrack Mr. Dole's statements and meaning, qualifying that Mr. Dole was not recommending Republicans sign on to any specific bill or, even final passage, but, that it is time for GOP bipartisanship effort toward health care reform. Though, Dole's spokesperson obviously did not help Mr. Dole with this contradictory statement.
Of course, until Pres. Obama signs a health care reform measure into law, there will continue to be intense efforts by players to kill any health care reform for the American people and the Democratic Party. They may however, be more inclined to do so anonymously going forward in light of the change in the polls in support of Democrat's basic proposals and objectives. With so many of the Right's claims about Democratic proposals having proved false to the majority of Americans, (no Death panels, no bankrupting deficit spending on health care reform for the Senate version, no change for senior citizens or individuals seeking private insurers absent an employer paid plan, and no coverage for illegal aliens), it is no wonder the majority of Americans have tuned out the Republicans and Righties trying to defeat reform, which in turn, would account for the dramatic change in the polls for the Democratic reform measures.
Republicans crying debt and deficits citing the CBO awhile back was the last fact based attempt to halt Democrats in their tracks. However, the latest CBO report indicates the Democrat's Senate version would actually reduce health care costs significantly over the next 10 years (see hyperlink above). As the Washington Post reported yesterday:
A health-care reform bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee would expand health coverage to nearly 30 million Americans who currently lack insurance and would meet President Obama's goal of reducing the federal budget deficit by 2019, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
It would appear a health care reform bill will be forthcoming into law. All that remains unanswered is whether it will be a bipartisan reform measure or Democrats will take all the credit for doing what Republicans didn't dare when they were in power, and fought Democrats and the American public on, with every trick in the book. Still, it must be said earnestly and objectively, that without Republican opposition, factual and otherwise, the American people would not likely be receiving a health care reform measure that can actually drive down health care costs while moving toward universal health care coverage, nor one which, does not add to the extreme national debt still growing for years to come. That is testament to our nation's need for multiple political parties represented in our legislative bodies.
Let’s hope something worthwhile results.
Posted by: gergle at October 8, 2009 06:56 AMgergle, NY Times reports this morning that Senate version will actually reduce health care deficits going forward.
I am for that. Plus, I will be one of those uninsurable persons with preexisting conditions who can’t be turned down or culled out for exceptionally high premiums with the reform. I am for that. So, for me, the basic ingredients are met if these two conditions are retained in the final version.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 8, 2009 08:39 AMMe too, I lied about a previous heart attack, or I wouldn’t only not have insurance, but no job.
Posted by: gergle at October 8, 2009 12:55 PMThis excerpt is from the website that Mr. Remer cited.
“In a letter to Baucus and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the committee’s ranking Republican, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf cautioned that the analysis is preliminary in large part because the committee has not yet drawn up the bill in legislative language.”
I read the letter from Elmendorf and my reading indicates that savings are based upon best scenario “hopes” while increases in taxes are “promised”.
I would advise Mr. Remer to wait awhile before opening the champagne. It would appear that the promised taxes and hoped for savings will begin in 2010 and the coverage will begin in 2014.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 8, 2009 01:29 PMRoyal Flush, too late. Champagne opened and enjoyed. Problem with comments like yours is they allude to refusal to support until perfection is achieved. This is government. Perfection is NEVER achieved, nor even definable for all the people.
If the cost curve is not bent downward, adjustments will have to be made in coming years. Everyone, today, is now acutely aware of how unsustainable and ruinous are nation’s debt path has become these last 8 years under Republican governance. Even Republicans! So, not to worry.
Sure hope the champagne taste lasts awhile. It is Pollyannish to accept an unwritten and as yet, unscored “bill”. To pin your hopes on something that is mere chimera is bound to disappoint.
Why is it that nearly every post you make bashes Republicans? I can think of many to blame for why our nation’s debt is so huge. I have posted in the past the great expectations of congress and the people when congress passed Social Security and Medicare. Promises were made, false figures abounded, politicians lied, and we suffer from such mendacity to this day.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 8, 2009 04:23 PMYes, Royal Flush, very much like conferring the Nobel Peace Prize on Iksaak Rabin or Obama, for what the Committee hopes such persons will accomplish.
Why is it Republicans like Steele bash Americans who get something they didn’t, as RNC chair’s Steele did today with Obama’s Nobel Prize? That is the answer to your question. Republicans seem to be so negative about everything except themselves. Calling it the Party of ‘No’ doesn’t do them justice. They are the Party of Destruction. Hell, they even destroyed their own Party by letting it be taken over by the largely under-educated, unquestioning, authoritarian following, religious Right. The Party of Destruction.
I want the likes of John Warner, Jack Kemp, and Abraham Lincoln back in control of the GOP building our nation up, not condemning all efforts to do so. Till then, I will keep critiquing the Grand Old Party of Destruction.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2009 01:40 PMCongrats to Mr. Obama for winning the peace prize though I can’t understand what he has done in promoting peace that is so worthy. I understand that the Vatican is considering conferring sainthood on him but no doubt he will defer the anointing as unworthy.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 9, 2009 02:58 PMSure are plenty of Fermented Grapes to go around amongst conservatives. Why not be proud of America for one of its own bringing home the prize and elevating the positive view of America by peoples around the world as a result? Just too magnanimity to ask for from the Party of Destruction, I guess.
Sen. John McCain, at least, showed some class and American pride today, in congratulating Obama on the prize. I think the prize signifies the Committee’s hopes for American leadership that moves to improve human rights efforts, environmental checks and balances, and far more peaceful diplomatic relations on America’s behalf, than that shown by its previous president.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2009 03:52 PMI guess Mr. Remer missed my congrats. So sad when some shoot from the hip (lip). Mr. Remer wrote;
“I think the prize signifies the Committee’s hopes for American leadership…”
Interesting comment. The Nobel is now awarded for hopes rather than deeds. And, isn’t that what got Mr. Obama elected…Hopes rather than any significant accomplishments?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 9, 2009 06:07 PMRoyal Flush displays a lack of research or history knowledge of the Nobel Committee’s many uses of awarding the prize. Perhaps you are confusing the Nobel Prize for Science or Medicine with the Peace Prize RF, which has been used on a number of occasions as a means to give momentum to a set of causes, such as the award to Rabin and Yassir Arrafat in 1994, to promote Palestinian Israeli Peace objectives, BEFORE such progress even had a hint of becoming reality.
Your notion that the prize is to be used exclusively for accomplishments is just that, a notion. The history of the Prize and the Committee’s use of the award contradicts such simple and ignorant notions.
Obama gets it, though. In his own words today:
“This award — and the call to action that comes with it — does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better. —Barack Obama
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
