Health Care Bipartisanship Falling Apart?
5013485President Obama and Senate congressional leaders have insisted from the get-go that they wanted their efforts at health care reform to be bipartisan. However, as the clock winds down to their self-imposed deadline for reform, liberal and centrist Democrats alike seem to be tired of waiting for their Republican counterparts to get on board.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday reportedly told Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is in charge of health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee, to forget about winning Republican support for the legislation. Furthermore, the Senate leader told Baucus that as many as 10 to 15 Democrats would drop their support for the bill if it does not include a government-sponsored health insurance plan, or "public option," but taxes health benefits, according to the newspaper Roll Call.
Baucus has been working closely to try to forge a bipartisan compromise with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the top Republican on the committee, but Grassley has refused to budge from his position against the public plan.
"I am going to make sure we are not going to nationalize health insurance, and a public plan is the first step to doing that," Grassley said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Baucus and Grassley have been trying to work out their differences before introducing health care legislation in the Finance Committee. Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Kennedy's Health, Educaiton, Labor and Pensions Committee has introduced a bill thought to be more liberal than anything the Finance team has been considering, with a proposal for a public option and a mandate for employers to provide benefits.
Now that Reid has informed Baucus that bipartisanship is no longer a priority, his committee has already started reconsidering the idea of taxing some health care benefits, an idea that is highly unpopular with the public and opposed by the president -- but seen as a means of making the reform package deficit-neutral.
Reid's push for liberal health care reform came on the very day Al Franken was sworn in as a senator for Minnesota, bringing the Democrats' majority in the Senate to a filibuster-proof count of 60.
The change in strategy also corresponds with stepped-up efforts from progressives in Congress to put their foot down on what they consider to be critical components of reform, like the public option. Liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has gone so far as to say he will start a "Coalition of the Unwilling" -- a group of progressives unwilling to compromise on the public option – formed in response to Baucus' bipartisan-minded "Coalition of the Willing."
Yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to Mr. Obama restating that "its members cannot support final passage of any health care reform bill that does not include a robust public plan option, akin to Medicare, operating alongside the private plans." The CPC is the largest non-party caucus in Congress and has nearly 80 members.
The letter was sent in response to questions that arose yesterday as to whether the Obama administration would be willing to negotiate on the public option, after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel indicated as much in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Obama, however, quickly put out a statement -- all the way from Moscow -- reaffirming his support for the public option.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday reportedly told Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is in charge of health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee, to forget about winning Republican support for the legislation. Furthermore, the Senate leader told Baucus that as many as 10 to 15 Democrats would drop their support for the bill if it does not include a government-sponsored health insurance plan, or "public option," but taxes health benefits, according to the newspaper Roll Call.
Baucus has been working closely to try to forge a bipartisan compromise with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the top Republican on the committee, but Grassley has refused to budge from his position against the public plan.
"I am going to make sure we are not going to nationalize health insurance, and a public plan is the first step to doing that," Grassley said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Baucus and Grassley have been trying to work out their differences before introducing health care legislation in the Finance Committee. Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Kennedy's Health, Educaiton, Labor and Pensions Committee has introduced a bill thought to be more liberal than anything the Finance team has been considering, with a proposal for a public option and a mandate for employers to provide benefits.
Now that Reid has informed Baucus that bipartisanship is no longer a priority, his committee has already started reconsidering the idea of taxing some health care benefits, an idea that is highly unpopular with the public and opposed by the president -- but seen as a means of making the reform package deficit-neutral.
Reid's push for liberal health care reform came on the very day Al Franken was sworn in as a senator for Minnesota, bringing the Democrats' majority in the Senate to a filibuster-proof count of 60.
The change in strategy also corresponds with stepped-up efforts from progressives in Congress to put their foot down on what they consider to be critical components of reform, like the public option. Liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has gone so far as to say he will start a "Coalition of the Unwilling" -- a group of progressives unwilling to compromise on the public option – formed in response to Baucus' bipartisan-minded "Coalition of the Willing."
Yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to Mr. Obama restating that "its members cannot support final passage of any health care reform bill that does not include a robust public plan option, akin to Medicare, operating alongside the private plans." The CPC is the largest non-party caucus in Congress and has nearly 80 members.
The letter was sent in response to questions that arose yesterday as to whether the Obama administration would be willing to negotiate on the public option, after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel indicated as much in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Obama, however, quickly put out a statement -- all the way from Moscow -- reaffirming his support for the public option.
Popular in Politics
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 76 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 154 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Bill Ayers: Obama should be tried for war crimes
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- FBI: Surveillance info helped reveal subway, stock exchange bombings 214 Comments
Right on. The Republicans don't seem to have any useful ideas on things that matter every day: health care, the economy, energy. I don't know exactly what their reason for being might be, you know, their role in the grand scheme of things. I hope this means they don't serve any sustainable purpose and they're about to be swept aside by something else that will take their place on the political scene and give the Democrats real competition. Competition is good, the market of ideas generates the best solution that we can all benefit from.
In Canada, there are 5 parties.
BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CREATED THE PROBLEM:
Decades ago the government passed ?pay or play? tax incentives that encouraged employers to provide employees with health insurance.
And America was hooked on health care the way junkies get hooked on smack. The dealer gave free samples until the client was hooked.
When I was young America was the world?s wealthiest nation. And employer provided health insurance paid 100% of medical costs. Because it was free it was abused. Mom took children to the emergency room for a rash and to the doctor for a small cut. Demand was artificially high.
Cost shifting provided for the uninsured. Patients with good insurance policies and wealthy patients with no insurance policies received inflated invoices to cover the costs of those who could not pay. Health care providers and hospitals robbed from the rich to provide health care for the poor.
It is instructive that during the time when America enjoyed great wealth the Federal Government expressed no concern for the plight of the uninsured!
But over time manufacturing jobs moved overseas and were replaced with lower paying service economy jobs. Consequently, employers offered health insurance with less coverage and higher deductibles and co-pays.
Were factory jobs lost because America could not compete with manufacturers in countries where government paid for health care? Regardless, American leaders would not raise tariffs to level the playing field and signed GATT and NAFTA into law!
And America?s leaders permitted millions of ?illegal? aliens to cross the border to do work American?s would not do. Our schools educated their children, our State governments gave them drivers licenses, our banks granted them mortgages and our hospitals provided them health care.
BOGUS SOLUTION
Now that America is the worlds biggest debtor nation the Federal Government has decided the plight of the uninsured is unconscionable and universal coverage is a moral imperative.
But this is not about the 46 million uninsured. It is about assuring health insurance companies? market share and health care professionals expected incomes and lifestyles.
The health system in America has been based on a larger and more affluent generation of young policy holders offsetting the health cost of middle aged and seniors. This formula is being upset by the WWII baby boomers generation approaching retirement and the global recession.
President Obama wants every American citizen to be required to buy a health insurance policy. He compares it to the requirement that motorists purchase auto insurance. But while driving is a privilege, life and the pursuit of happiness is a right!
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the Federal Governments authority to require the purchase of a health insurance policy as a condition of having been born?
Where is freedom when government has the power to tell you how to spend after tax dollars? What distinguishes disposable income from taxes?
As for the proposal that the IRS be charged with fining citizens who do not purchase a health insurance policy, since the federal government just prints more paper money to pay debt why is taxation or the IRS even necessary. Just shutdown the IRS and transfer its budget to indigent care!
FREE MARKET IS THE SOLUTION
Is providing health care an enumerated power or responsibility of the Federal Government?
The Federal Government lacks any authority to preach fiscal responsibility. It has exhibited none in my lifetime and has reduced the wealthiest nation on the planet to world?s biggest debtor nation.
But Ma and Pa citizen have had to balance a checkbook their entire lives. The solution is to return control of health care spending to them.
Pass a law making it illegal for an employer to offer health insurance as an employee benefit. End wage stagnation and give employees raises instead.
Doing away with group health insurance and forcing insurance providers to compete for individual business will permit cost conscious Ma and Pa to shop for the best deal, like they do auto insurance. Then the free market will bring costs under control!
63% do want a public plan but 80% want to make sure illegals are not eligable. At least there is some sanity left. don't people see that if you deny them the things citizens have they will eventually go home where they belong?
Where did you acquire your hatred for anyone living in the South ?? were you raped by a confederate soldier in the Civil War? I think so.....nothing else can explain your blatant hatred of anything southern
"Gallup sees more Americans moving right
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
07/06/09 5:58 PM EDT
Gallup is out today with a new survey showing more Americans are moving to the Right politically than to the Left, including people in all three major groups, Republicans, Independents and Democrats.
"Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left, " the polling organization said in a special report released earlier today.
The results follow hard on the heels of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's announcement of her intent to resign her office at the end of this month, and will almost certainly add new fuel to the spirited debate raging among conservatives and liberals in both political parties about the wisdom and timing of her decision.
The latest Gallup results also come soon after the organization reported that 40 percent of Americans now identify themselves as conservatives, the highest level since 2004.
In a masterful piece of understatement, the unnamed author of the Gallup announcement of its specia report results offered this observation:
The latest data also strongly suggest not only that the election results of 2006 and 2008 should be read as a stunning rejection of current Republican office-holders and spokesmen, but also that Democrats are wrong to read into those results a mandate for liberal change.
"However, the results are conspicuously incongruous with the results of the 2008 elections, in which the Democratic Party won the White House for the first time in eight years, and increased its majority control in the U.S. House and Senate. Rather than suggesting an upturn in conservatism, the elections, the tattered image of the GOP, depressed identification with the Republican Party, and President Obama's broad popularity have many in and outside of the Republican Party wondering whether the country has outgrown the GOP's largely conservative platform."
When 4 years have gone by and the anger at bush has faded obama and his team will have to run on what they accomplished. If the country is still in a depression and spending is out of control there is no way he can win again.
sure the poor might still vote for him if they are recieving more entitlements but everyone only has one vote, so if moderate dems in the middle class get off the obama train he cannot win, and these are the people who will vote according to their bank accounts, tax burdens and what they are getting in return.