The State of Healthcare Reform

Posted on July 16th, 2009 by ecthompson

Our legislators are sure doing us a disservice. Very few are serious about universal healthcare. The bipartisanship sought by many Democrats (Max Baucus) is a waste of time!!! Republicans have said that they are not interested in any type of healthcare reform. They want the status quo. How do you negotiate from that position?

From the Political Animal:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah complained yesterday, “From the start of the health care debate, Democrats have completely shut us out of the process.”

One wonders which process Hatch has been watching. The Senate majority seems to have invested an enormous amount of time and energy trying to reach out to the 40-seat Republican minority. Indeed, had Dems decided early on to blow off the GOP altogether, chances are, we’d be closer to a finished product by now.

And yet, Republican outreach continues anyway. Late yesterday, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) continued to huddle with Republicans on his committee, and around the same time, President Obama chatted up Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). The Politico reported this morning that the president will meet with “more Republican senators at the White House” today.

Do these efforts suggest Democrats are back to prioritizing bipartisanship as a perquisite to reform? Apparently not.

[P]rivately, White House officials said the administration is moving closer to advancing the overhaul under a congressional procedure known as budget reconciliation that would make the bill immune to filibuster in the Senate.

While the administration still prefers to get a bill that commands some Republican support, its standard for a bipartisan agreement is a measure that contains GOP amendments — not something that will necessarily attract Republican votes.

The subtle but important shift reflects Obama’s eagerness to get House and Senate bills to a conference in September and sign a final bill into law by fall.

There’s nothing inherently contradictory here. Obama and his allies are effectively telling Republicans, “We’re listening and we’d like your support. But we’re not going to let the minority derail reform.” It adds some leverage to the discussions — Dems want GOP votes, but they don’t need GOP votes, and the majority would apparently prefer that Republicans keep that in mind.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) no doubt spoke for many when he said, “There’s a strong preference for bipartisanship because it makes the bill easier to pass. But if we cannot get bipartisanship, we must forge ahead because health care reform is too important.” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) added, “There’s a value in achieving bipartisanship, but I will not sacrifice a good bill for that. The people we are working for are not our colleagues, but the American public.”

Meanwhile, in the House, conservative Blue Dog Dems continue to be an ongoing obstacle for reform. Rep. Mike Ross (D) of Arkansas told CNN yesterday, “We remain opposed to the current bill, and we continue to meet several times a day to decide how we’re going to proceed.”

Tags: Congress, Healthcare, Obama administration // View Comments

  • ecthompson
    Yep, even in "good" companies there are problems and waste.

    You have been brainwashed to believe that Americans can only be efficient if they are in a private company. That somehow those same Americans become wasteful morons if they are placed in the government. I believe in America and Americans. If we put our mind to something I know that we can do it.
  • Yep, even in "good" companies there are problems and waste.

    You have been brainwashed to believe that Americans can only be efficient if they are in a private company. That somehow those same Americans become wasteful morons if they are placed in the government. I believe in America and Americans. If we put our mind to something I know that we can do it.
  • Bud Brooks
    I guess the fundamental difference between you and me is that I know government is not efficient, because it has no incentive to be efficient. Private sector is always more efficient because it has to be to compete. Government has no competition; it does not compete in the marketplace.

    You name 4-5-6 companies, but you failed to mention the other millions and millions of companies that do just fine, create profit and wealth, and are the economic engine that is the U.S. like nowhere else. If the government is so efficient, then we should just turn over everything to it!
  • Bud Brooks
    I guess the fundamental difference between you and me is that I know government is not efficient, because it has no incentive to be efficient. Private sector is always more efficient because it has to be to compete. Government has no competition; it does not compete in the marketplace.

    You name 4-5-6 companies, but you failed to mention the other millions and millions of companies that do just fine, create profit and wealth, and are the economic engine that is the U.S. like nowhere else. If the government is so efficient, then we should just turn over everything to it!
  • ecthompson
    Bud -

    I totally agree that this bill is a piece of junk. But I don't think that we agree in the same way. If you start with a blank slate, a clean piece of paper, and you start to write down the things that you want in a healthcare system, almost nobody puts health insurance down as one of the things that they desire. As a matter fact, I think you can say that health insurance, from a business perspective, does not add any value to the delivery of healthcare. So, if we eliminate the insurance industry, completely remove them, we take all the money that we're paying now to Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance programs, state health insurance programs it would put all of that into a pot, we come up with $2.2 trillion. By eliminating health insurance (private health insurance), we have an extra $700 billion. That money will more than cover the 46 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

    Currently, health care is denied or given by health insurance bureaucrats. This is simply a fact. As long as you're healthy, keep paying your premiums, the health-insurance industry is happy with you. Begin a bad car crash and have plenty of injuries, they aren't happy. They're thinking about increasing your premiums or possibly labeling you as being uninsurable. You know this happens to Americans every day.


    The Department of Motor Vehicles is a state agency.

    After 30 years of Republicans controlling the purse strings, they have completely decimated the government. Good government employees have left. Others are hanging on to retirement. I completely reject the idea that government cannot be run efficiently. I also laugh at the idea that business is somehow more efficient and magically better than a government run entity. Enron, WorldCom, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, and Microsoft are just a few businesses that come to mind. These models of efficiency?

    The US government is us. The government is not run by aliens from outer space. The government is not run by Al Qaeda or former Soviet Union KGB. The government is run by Americans. If we want an efficient government, we need to demand an efficient government. FEMA evacuated over 1 million people from South Florida in the mid-90s. FEMA was demoted, demoralized and Bozo the clown (Michael Brown) was placed in charge of FEMA. There should be no surprise that it functioned like a demoralized, unwanted stepchild.

    BTW, if you really want to oppose this bill, let me made the argument for you. You can make a thoughtful argument that isn't based of FEAR of the government or any other half-truths. Just tell the truth. This bill will be a larger version of the Mass. bill which Mitt Romney has been trumpeting. Costs in Mass have been skyrocketing. This bill will do nothing to control costs. I thought that the whole purpose of reform was to do 3 things - cover all Americans, improve healthcare and to control costs. This bill at best will do only half the job. (How's that?)

    Again, thanks for your comments.
  • ecthompson
    Wow, I don't know where to start. I will break this up into two comments because they're so much here.

    From Political Animal:
    That sounds scary! It also sounds completely implausible. So I went and looked at the actual bill, and there that paragraph was, on p. 16, in a section defining the term "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". The fact that it's in a definition might lead readers to conclude that it doesn't mean that you can't buy individual insurance after the bill takes effect, but only that you can't buy such insurance and have it meet the bill's definition of "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". There is a difference.

    "Grandfathered Health Insurance" is mentioned in Sec. 102, Sec. 202, and Sec. 401. Unless my search engine has melted down, these are the only mentions of "Grandfathered Health Insurance" in the bill. None of them even comes close to banning private individual insurance. Check for yourselves.

    So I did exactly that. I looked at page 16. There is no such language on page 16 (I have taken a screen photo of page 16 - here and here for those who don't want to read the whole bill) or anywhere in the bill. This is just another scare tactic from Republicans. When you can't win with facts, lie. Investor's Business Daily started this garbage.

    More from Political Animal:
    Here are some bloggers who repeated IBD's claims: Instapundit (he updated after a reader pointed out his mistake), Meredith Jessup at Townhall, No Sheeples Here! (sic),Patterico, Gateway Pundit, theblogprof (sic), Ed Morrissey (he updates with a correction, but completely doesn't get why pooling individuals in an exchange lowers premiums. Hint: large risk pool), Say Anything, Michelle Malkin, Jules Crittenden, Right Wing News, Maggie's Farm, The Astute Bloggers (sic).

    Since those claims are so obviously false to anyone who reads the actual bill, or even skims the relevant sections, I conclude that these bloggers did not bother to check them out before they posted. Which is to say: they didn't bother to do the most basic, rudimentary research that any blogger ought to do.

    Tom Maguire, on the other hand, did, and spotted the mistake. Kudos.
  • Wow, I don't know where to start. I will break this up into two comments because they're so much here.

    From Political Animal:
    That sounds scary! It also sounds completely implausible. So I went and looked at the actual bill, and there that paragraph was, on p. 16, in a section defining the term "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". The fact that it's in a definition might lead readers to conclude that it doesn't mean that you can't buy individual insurance after the bill takes effect, but only that you can't buy such insurance and have it meet the bill's definition of "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". There is a difference.

    "Grandfathered Health Insurance" is mentioned in Sec. 102, Sec. 202, and Sec. 401. Unless my search engine has melted down, these are the only mentions of "Grandfathered Health Insurance" in the bill. None of them even comes close to banning private individual insurance. Check for yourselves.

    So I did exactly that. I looked at page 16. There is no such language on page 16 (I have taken a screen photo of page 16 - here and here for those who don't want to read the whole bill) or anywhere in the bill. This is just another scare tactic from Republicans. When you can't win with facts, lie. Investor's Business Daily started this garbage.

    More from Political Animal:
    Here are some bloggers who repeated IBD's claims: Instapundit (he updated after a reader pointed out his mistake), Meredith Jessup at Townhall, No Sheeples Here! (sic),Patterico, Gateway Pundit, theblogprof (sic), Ed Morrissey (he updates with a correction, but completely doesn't get why pooling individuals in an exchange lowers premiums. Hint: large risk pool), Say Anything, Michelle Malkin, Jules Crittenden, Right Wing News, Maggie's Farm, The Astute Bloggers (sic).

    Since those claims are so obviously false to anyone who reads the actual bill, or even skims the relevant sections, I conclude that these bloggers did not bother to check them out before they posted. Which is to say: they didn't bother to do the most basic, rudimentary research that any blogger ought to do.

    Tom Maguire, on the other hand, did, and spotted the mistake. Kudos.
  • Bud Brooks
    Erri, the reason that the Dems need Republican support is because, as Mike Ross says, his group of Dems is not supporting the bill. So, in fact, they can't push this junk bill through without some of their own Dems voting for it. If they had all the Dems, they'd give a rat's behind about the Republicans.

    I can't understand why anyone on this country wants a $1.5 trillion bill to completely remake healthcare when it is the greatest healthcare system in the world. Who loves the Post Office, or FEMA, or FNMA/FHMC, or the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, or virtually any other government office? And you want this same thing, that doesn't work in the UK or Canada, with the pleasure of bureaucrats controlling (rationing) your care? How nuts are people to think this makes sense?

    Many of the uninsured are illegals, so we have no business paying for them. And even if you don't have "insurance coverage" you still get care at any hospital in the country in an emergency basis.

    Page 16 of the Bill: Individuals CANNOT purchase their own insurance plan anymore. No individual health policies will be allowed; you MUST buy it from the government. How's that for freedom of choice? Is that what you all want; no choice, whatsoever?

    It's beyond common sense to think that this will work. There aren't enough "rich" people to pay for this; the math doesn't work. And why soak them for more taxes? Why do they deserve to be stuck with this massive socialist, fascist, Marxist program? Why do you all think this is going to work? It's total lunacy!

    THIS BILL WILL NOT BE PASSED!
  • Bud -

    I totally agree that this bill is a piece of junk. But I don't think that we agree in the same way. If you start with a blank slate, a clean piece of paper, and you start to write down the things that you want in a healthcare system, almost nobody puts health insurance down as one of the things that they desire. As a matter fact, I think you can say that health insurance, from a business perspective, does not add any value to the delivery of healthcare. So, if we eliminate the insurance industry, completely remove them, we take all the money that we're paying now to Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance programs, state health insurance programs it would put all of that into a pot, we come up with $2.2 trillion. By eliminating health insurance (private health insurance), we have an extra $700 billion. That money will more than cover the 46 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

    Currently, health care is denied or given by health insurance bureaucrats. This is simply a fact. As long as you're healthy, keep paying your premiums, the health-insurance industry is happy with you. Begin a bad car crash and have plenty of injuries, they aren't happy. They're thinking about increasing your premiums or possibly labeling you as being uninsurable. You know this happens to Americans every day.


    The Department of Motor Vehicles is a state agency.

    After 30 years of Republicans controlling the purse strings, they have completely decimated the government. Good government employees have left. Others are hanging on to retirement. I completely reject the idea that government cannot be run efficiently. I also laugh at the idea that business is somehow more efficient and magically better than a government run entity. Enron, WorldCom, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, and Microsoft are just a few businesses that come to mind. These models of efficiency?

    The US government is us. The government is not run by aliens from outer space. The government is not run by Al Qaeda or former Soviet Union KGB. The government is run by Americans. If we want an efficient government, we need to demand an efficient government. FEMA evacuated over 1 million people from South Florida in the mid-90s. FEMA was demoted, demoralized and Bozo the clown (Michael Brown) was placed in charge of FEMA. There should be no surprise that it functioned like a demoralized, unwanted stepchild.

    BTW, if you really want to oppose this bill, let me made the argument for you. You can make a thoughtful argument that isn't based of FEAR of the government or any other half-truths. Just tell the truth. This bill will be a larger version of the Mass. bill which Mitt Romney has been trumpeting. Costs in Mass have been skyrocketing. This bill will do nothing to control costs. I thought that the whole purpose of reform was to do 3 things - cover all Americans, improve healthcare and to control costs. This bill at best will do only half the job. (How's that?)

    Again, thanks for your comments.
  • Bud Brooks
    Erri, the reason that the Dems need Republican support is because, as Mike Ross says, his group of Dems is not supporting the bill. So, in fact, they can't push this junk bill through without some of their own Dems voting for it. If they had all the Dems, they'd give a rat's behind about the Republicans.

    I can't understand why anyone on this country wants a $1.5 trillion bill to completely remake healthcare when it is the greatest healthcare system in the world. Who loves the Post Office, or FEMA, or FNMA/FHMC, or the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, or virtually any other government office? And you want this same thing, that doesn't work in the UK or Canada, with the pleasure of bureaucrats controlling (rationing) your care? How nuts are people to think this makes sense?

    Many of the uninsured are illegals, so we have no business paying for them. And even if you don't have "insurance coverage" you still get care at any hospital in the country in an emergency basis.

    Page 16 of the Bill: Individuals CANNOT purchase their own insurance plan anymore. No individual health policies will be allowed; you MUST buy it from the government. How's that for freedom of choice? Is that what you all want; no choice, whatsoever?

    It's beyond common sense to think that this will work. There aren't enough "rich" people to pay for this; the math doesn't work. And why soak them for more taxes? Why do they deserve to be stuck with this massive socialist, fascist, Marxist program? Why do you all think this is going to work? It's total lunacy!

    THIS BILL WILL NOT BE PASSED!
  • Fratigone
    Obama has to be, figuratively speaking, a war-time president in this fight for real healthcare reform. He has to go on the offense. He cannot compromise with what is essentially healthcare reform's Axis Of Evil:

    http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=63680

    *
  • Fratigone
    Obama has to be, figuratively speaking, a war-time president in this fight for real healthcare reform. He has to go on the offense. He cannot compromise with what is essentially healthcare reform's Axis Of Evil:

    http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=63680

    *
  • margaret
    In my city newspaper today they mentioned that if NO healthcare reform is passed this year 380 people will lose insurance a week. Which is 56,000 by the end of 2010. Since Utah is such a republican state and our only democrat is a Blue Dog I hope this wakes people up in this state to start pressing our senators. I don't think it will do anything here. But, maybe if other newspapers printed similar counts for their states, then the people might have some pressure points.
  • margaret2
    In my city newspaper today they mentioned that if NO healthcare reform is passed this year 380 people will lose insurance a week. Which is 56,000 by the end of 2010. Since Utah is such a republican state and our only democrat is a Blue Dog I hope this wakes people up in this state to start pressing our senators. I don't think it will do anything here. But, maybe if other newspapers printed similar counts for their states, then the people might have some pressure points.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »