Is Obama Too Flexible On Health Care Fix?

Washington Post: Left-Leaning Reformers, Lawmakers Worried About White House's Dedication To Public Insurance Option

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Washington Post Staff Writer Ceci Connolly.

---

As Congress returns to begin an intense debate over reshaping the nation's $2.2 trillion health-care system, prominent left-leaning organizations and liberal House members are issuing a warning to their Democratic allies: Don't cave on us.

The early skirmishing - essentially amounting to friendly fire - is perhaps the clearest indication yet of the uphill battle President Obama faces in delivering on his promise to make affordable, high-quality care available to every American.

Disputes over whether to create a new government-sponsored insurance program to compete with private companies shine a light on the intraparty fissures that may prove more problematic than any partisan brawl.

More than 70 House Democrats recently warned party leaders that they will not support a broad health reform bill that does not offer consumers a government-sponsored policy, and two unions withdrew from a high-profile health coalition because it would not endorse a public plan.

"It's way too early" to abandon what it considers a central plank in health reform, said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. He said the organization pulled out of the bipartisan Health Reform Dialogue because it feared its friends in the coalition were sacrificing core principles too soon. "You don't make compromises with your allies."

Last week, two top administration officials suggested that Obama is open to compromise on the public plan, comments that set off alarm bells in some corners of his party.

"That's what got the left nervous. I took that as a signal to Senator Grassley" that Obama is willing to negotiate around an issue Grassley has vehemently opposed, said Len Nichols, health policy director at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, referring to Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). "It was the first time the president indicated he could live without it."

During last year's campaign, Obama proposed offering a government-sponsored plan as a low-cost alternative for Americans who are having trouble purchasing insurance in the private market. Proponents say it would reduce costs because it would not need to make a profit or pay large executive salaries.

Many Republicans and industry executives say that any program modeled after Medicare - with its power to set prices - would have an unfair advantage over private-sector competitors and eventually force some companies out of business.

"The sacred cow on the left and the right is the public plan," said former senator Thomas A. Daschle, who was Obama's first choice to oversee the reform effort.

In comments last week, Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the White House Office of Health Reform, said the ultimate solution may rest in how a public plan is defined.

"There are different breeds of public plans that could be part of this," she said, explaining that the Medicare model is not the only approach.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman clarified that Obama has not taken the idea off the table but is willing to consider any proposal that meets his broad goals. "The administration is open to all ideas for achieving those goals," Linda Douglass said.

To date, the health reform debate has been cordial, with a wide spectrum of interests talking up a willingness to compromise. The amiable tone stands in marked contrast to the vitriol of 1993 that quickly buried a reform effort by the Clintons.

But that amiable tone is precisely what troubles liberal advocacy groups such as Consumer Watchdog.

The California-based nonprofit, in unusually harsh rhetoric, is accusing the Obama administration and congressional Democrats of negotiating a deal with industry lobbyists at the expense of average Americans.

"This process has gotten away from the public because it is being carried out behind closed doors with lobbyists in the room but no consumer advocates," said Jamie Court, the group's president. "We've got to make our views known before we are presented with a fait accompli."

Court complained about efforts by top Senate Democrats to negotiate in private the broad outlines of what could become a comprehensive agreement. Over many months, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have convened brainstorming sessions with lobbyists representing doctors, hospitals, insurers, drugmakers, the American Cancer Society, the seniors lobby AARP and others. The two chairmen reiterated yesterday that they plan to develop a single bill.

The formal legislative process will start today, when Baucus convenes the first meeting of the Senate Finance Committee.

But in a letter to Kennedy, Court chastised the longtime lawmaker for compromising on health legislation in the past and warned Kennedy against succumbing again to the "for-profit, waste-enhancing" private insurance industry.

"Don't let the institution of the United States Senate use your name and credibility for something that goes against the principles you fought for your entire life," it said.

Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley said the senator "believes that Americans should have the option of buying a public insurance plan if they believe that's the best choice for their families."

Families USA has also been involved in the private talks.

"The meetings taking place on the Hill involve numerous consumer organizations," said Ron Pollack, vice president of the pro-reform liberal group. "We've had meetings that involved over 100 consumer organizations, providing them with a briefing and enabling their input."

Douglass disputed suggestions of a rift in the party. "The Democrats are extraordinarily unified this time around," she said.

Yet even administration allies acknowledged tensions over the public plan option.

"This issue has become so vituperative, a serious conversation about how to structure a public plan has gotten secondary attention," Nichols said.

Nichols, who has proposed creating a semi-public option that would have publicly appointed managers but no rate-setting authority, said the disagreement signals a new phase in the overall debate. As he put it: "We've gotten past the kumbaya phase."

[brady51h-2009]

Democrats always fold at the first sign of a fight. I don't get the impression Obama even really wants a Government run Health Care system. I hope I'm wrong.

[erasmus111]

Posted by oftencensord at 3:57 PM : Apr 21, 2009

Your doctors have no freedom to do what they want. The insurance companies control them. They have to do what the insurance companies want. In other words, they can't do their job! The doctors can't look out for the best interest of the patient because they have to look out for the best interest of the insurance company. Some doctors that have a conscience quit.

And when a hospital is owned privately, you have BIG problems. Problems with cleanliness and problems with incompetence. The people no longer have control.

[oftencensord]

All of you social justice freaks crying for a socialized health system ever stop to think if the Medical Professionals in this once free country would go along with being forced into servitude to the almighty US Government? Most doctors are self employed or members of group practices functioning as corporations or LLC . What makes you think they are going give up a lifetime of education and investment to work for a Federal system that will limit every aspect of their existence? Have you ever wondered why we have so many foreign doctors here in the USA? It is because there is great demand for good doctors and the in the USA there is FREEDOM to form a group, or even their own hospital to run as they wish. Government force may not get the results you want ! .... think there could be a doctors strike in our future?

[noloyalisti]

Socialism, where the people owns the means of production is the ONLY way to go. That is especially true with health care, a basic human right. The privatized American system is an unqualified disaster. It is not even close to the best system even though we spend more than anyone else.

[johninpennsyl]

Its really a joke to say that people come from places with socialized health care to the United States to get treatment-that must be like the Rothschilds or somebody that needs to see some U.S. specialist.For the rich its great,for the middle class it blows,big time.
All they want to know from middle class people is who will pay?Can we take your house?
Is the co-owner here?He needs to sign for treatment.Who cares whats wrong with you-we need money!
The people that started this managed care,should be strung up.We had a system that worked-they wrecked it-all out of greed and of course there was no oversight from the same group that let the banks screw us.Maybe we deserve it-because we are really friggin gullible.

[erasmus111]

Posted by erasmus111 at 9:59 AM : Apr 21, 2009

The only reason I said that is because we all do have health care, very few guns, and we are all Happy, Happy, Happy! : )

[erasmus111]

You know, I've been thinking. You know this thing about bad karma, or whatever? Maybe that's the problem. They say when your house is messy and cluttered that you have to clean it up so you can "feel" better. Maybe the lack of health care, all the worrying etc., is affecting everybody. When you have that stress it leads to all sorts of things. Like all these killings, for instance. Clean up the health care issue, the guns : ), and maybe people will start feeling a whole lot better. You can breathe easier and be a whole lot happier.

Just a thought. NO comments please. : )

[noloyalisti]

There is only one thing that will work: universal single payer health care. We need to get profiteering out of health care, a basic human right that should not be subject to rich, greedy right wing corporate fools.

[erasmus111]

Sorry, "soley" should have been "solely". : )

[erasmus111]

Posted by skyk-2009 at 8:38 AM : Apr 21, 2009

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by your last statement.

A lot of employers will pay our health care for us, but we are not soley dependant on them for it. If we should lose a job, we can still pay it on our own. Or if something happens that we can't afford it, we still have it. We are never without it.

[erasmus111]

Exactly what needs to happen... get rid of the health insurance company leeches...

Posted by wogerwabbit at 9:04 AM : Apr 21, 2009

Exactly. You need to get rid of them and start all over again.

[erasmus111]

Do I hear more medicaid, more taxes, more medicaid, more taxes, more free rides for the low-lifes who've never worked a day in their life or paid taxes. Tthe worst thing you can do in the United States is work, and pay taxes because if you do and you're not a socialist, you're __________!!!!!!!
Posted by enjoylife63 at 9:12 AM : Apr 21, 2009

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. You are whining because you don't want to have to pay for the people that can't afford health care?

Here, anyone that makes under a certain amount of money, it is free, yes.

How much do you pay for your health care? Or do you even have any? I can guarantee that whatever you pay is way more than what we pay in Canada. And everyone is covered. The peace of mind knowing that everyone is being looked after is PRICELESS.

You are a selfish person. With you, it's every man for himself.

[hagar39]

The USA ranks 37th in heath care around the world. France #1, Italy #2.
The USA is the only nation in the world that "does not" have a health care system. But, remember the USA is a young nation. Only 224 years old. Other nations are 1200 to 1600 years old. One day we will have a health care system. We have to join the world. The USA is like a teenager. We think we know everything , but we have a lot to learn about this great planet we live on.

[wogerwabbit]

"Many Republicans and industry executives say that any program modeled after Medicare - with its power to set prices - would have an unfair advantage over private-sector competitors and eventually force some companies out of business."

Exactly what needs to happen... get rid of the health insurance company leeches...

[mjvwsr]

Man you can forget this noise!! American's have been PROMISED a solution to this problem SINCE the Right shot down Hillary's Plan. All we've seen if FAILURE with a big capital "F":! We have the WORST Health Care System in the WORLD right now because we have listened to you people for Three Decades and that's enough! We PAY MORE per covered Person in the WORLD and we cover fewer with that money than anywhere in the WORLD. PLEASE don't tell me it cost to much to fix...it COST TO MUCH right now!!
Posted by skyk-2009

so what's keeping you here?

[skyk-2009]

The great secretary of state pushed this issue when her cigar dipping husband was president. Why is it that people from foreign countries that have social medicine come to the US to have cancer treatments, open heart surgeries, etc? Why do foreign heads of state come here for their surgeries and treatments? You know the answer.

We can't afford it and who really benefits?

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!
Posted by godhelpus2 at 7:01 AM : Apr 21, 2009


Man you can forget this noise!! American's have been PROMISED a solution to this problem SINCE the Right shot down Hillary's Plan. All we've seen if FAILURE with a big capital "F":! We have the WORST Health Care System in the WORLD right now because we have listened to you people for Three Decades and that's enough! We PAY MORE per covered Person in the WORLD and we cover fewer with that money than anywhere in the WORLD. PLEASE don't tell me it cost to much to fix...it COST TO MUCH right now!!

[skyk-2009]

I can only speak for Canada, not England. We don't have people dying frome LACK OF HEALTH CARE like you do! We don't put our poor (still in their hospital gowns), into a taxi and have them drop them off on SKID ROW! We don't have people dying on the foors of hospitals while people stand around and watch.
Posted by erasmus111 at 8:28 AM : Apr 21, 2009

Now we don't want to hear that! It might offend some Red Neck Congressman and force him to roll out the Socialist Brand!! LOL You folks have yet another advantage in that YOUR Health Care is not considered as part of your wages when it comest to trade talks throughout the world.

[erasmus111]

Look at the mortality rates in England and Canada under socialized medicine.

Posted by regret-my-vote at 6:27 AM : Apr 21, 2009

You can't really be serious? Do you read your news? Do you know your country?

I can only speak for Canada, not England. We don't have people dying frome LACK OF HEALTH CARE like you do! We don't put our poor (still in their hospital gowns), into a taxi and have them drop them off on SKID ROW! We don't have people dying on the foors of hospitals while people stand around and watch.

[erasmus111]

Why is it that people from foreign countries that have social medicine come to the US to have cancer treatments, open heart surgeries, etc?

Posted by godhelpus2 at 7:01 AM : Apr 21, 2009

I am getting so tired of hearing this, I could throw up!

No CANADIAN in their right mind would go to the U.S. for their health care! They would have to be INSANE! When we pay our $50 or $90 a month for health care, that covers EVERYTHING! Why would we go to your country and have to pay thousands of dollars?

The only ones that may go would be a few of the RICH. Why? Because they want, what they want, when they want it! There are some that think they are just so much better than everyone else.

And if you think it's because of long waits, it's not. You can see a doctor the same day, a specialist within a couple of weeks and also surgeries can be done anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of months. That isn't that long considering EVERYONE is covered. And if whatever your problem is, is life threatening, it happens NOW.

[obama-biden]

Health Care 101:

1. Google 'healthcare fraud'

2. Google 'UnitedHealth Group' (or just about any healthcare corporation) and 'fraud'

3. Now ask yourself, friends and relatives: Why in the hell would we expand the roles of the current players in the healthcare debacle ... instead of establishing a single-payer universal healthcare system at exponentially less cost and infinitely more benefits?