October 14, 2009 8:35 AM

Health Care Tops Congress' Full Agenda

(CBS/AP)  President Obama and Congress are both back from vacation, and this morning everyone will hit the ground running.

It's no exaggeration, reports CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante, to say that President Obama's political future is riding on the appeal he will make for healthcare reform tomorrow. CBS' Bob Schieffer said yesterday that "this may well be the biggest week of the Obama administration so far." If Mr. Obama fails to get a health care reform package, Schieffer said, "he'll be in trouble from here on."

But before reentering the fray on health care, the president addressed schoolchildren on the importance of responsibility - a speech that spawned some conservative critics to charge the Mr. Obama with trying to "indoctrinate" a captive audience of kids to his political agenda.

First Assignment: Health Care Reform

But it is Mr. Obama's speech on health care reform before a joint session of Congress tomorrow that is really crucial - and the president previewed his arguments to union members at a Labor Day rally in Cincinnati.

"It's time to do what's right for America's working families, to put aside partisanship, to come together as a nation, to pass health insurance reform now," he said.

The nation currently spends $2.5 trillion on health care, but an estimated 46 million Americans have no health insurance.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

The president reiterated his support for government-run public insurance program, even though White House officials have made it clear that he's willing to sign a bill without it - a potential concession that has angered many of his supporters.

Some analysts believe Wednesday's speech will be President Obama's last chance to regain control of the debate.

"It's important for the president to remind people what's in this reform for them, and also to be a little bit more specific," said CBS News political analyst John Dickerson.

In a fresh sign of divisions in the president's own party, a key House Democratic moderate said he can no longer support legislation that includes a new public insurance plan to compete with private industry.

And in the Senate, any hope of bipartisan agreement hung in the balance as a small group of negotiators on the pivotal Finance Committee prepared to meet in a last-ditch effort to reach consensus on a compromise bill.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., took the lead in July in negotiating changes to House Democrats' health overhaul bill to make it more palatable to moderates. He voted for it in committee with a public plan - something most House liberals say they can't do without.

But Ross said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess he could not support a bill with a public plan.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

The six Finance Committee senators - three Democrats and three Republicans - planned to meet to consider a new proposal that might be the last, best hope for an overhaul agreement. The proposal by the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, leaves out the government-run alternative favored by liberal Democrats.

Four congressional committees so far have produced partisan plans for revamping the nation's health care system. Baucus had said he would move forward with a plan if there's no bipartisan agreement by Sept. 15, but the chairman now faces new pressure to get a deal ahead of Obama's speech.

Baucus would impose a fee on insurance companies to help finance coverage for uninsured Americans.

It's not clear whether that would win support of two key Republicans in the group, Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The Baucus proposal reflected many of their priorities, chief among them the decision not to include the so-called public option to compete with private insurers.

Grassley said Tuesday that the administration had been "all over the ballpark" on the issue before Congress' summer recess and that he's still interested in finding a bipartisan consensus, if possible.

Asked on CNN about the prospect of the talks scheduled to resume later Tuesday, he replied, "We won't know until we meet. ... The good and the bad of the president speaking this week is we've had to speed up the work of our group to have something better ... and that's bad because we probably should have taken a little more time."

Grassley said he was concerned that any fee charged to insurance companies would end up getting passed on to other premium holders, and he embraced the notion of nonprofit health care cooperatives to help provide coverage for the uninsured - an alternative to the public plan.

Saying Americans voice have been heard, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said on "The Early Show" today he does not believe a public option will be part of a final health care reform package. "While I think certainly the president will mention that in a speech Wednesday night, I do not think it's going to be a part of a plan that passes unless it's done through reconciliation, which to me is not the route to go."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said that there is a consensus among the public: "People want to get more affordable health care. They want to have stability, so if their kid gets sick, they don't lose their health care."

Klobuchar told "Early Show" anchor Harry Smith, "You're starting to see some people talking about coming together here. I think that there are many things we can do. First of all, we need to put strong regulations on insurance companies so they can't punish people just because their family member gets sick. You have to be able to take your insurance with you when you go someplace, if you change jobs or you lose your job." She also said that because small businesses pay 20 percent more than large corporations for health care, a public option would allow them to buy into a pool like the federal employee health care plan.

"People like Amy I know want to work to solve this problem," Corker said, "but my hope is what we'll do is move away from those things that separate us, let's take an incremental step, let's do no harm, let's do something that will stand the test of time, increase competition, create more access, and let's move away from those things that have been the issues that have separated our country and caused so many people around our country to be concerned about their own health situation."

Klobuchar said President Obama's speech is "incredibly important. This is his moment put some meat on the bones with these proposals. I think Americans have learned so much in the last month, so they are ready to hear from him."

Despite all of the heated exchanges of the summer, Klobuchar said, "people are ready to listen and to learn and I think it's very important [Obama] focus on the affordability issue, the cost, how we can make this system work. The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, if the hospitals in the country use the same protocol they used for chronic diseases, we'd save $50 billion - $50 billion in taxpayer money every five years. That's just one example."

[Klobuchar was referencing a December 2008 white paper by the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice which said adopting the Mayo Clinic's organized practices strategy would save 30 percent of the nation's health care costs for acute and chronic illnesses.]

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama was set to meet at the White House Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 255 Comments
by VirginiaGentleman2 September 9, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
Do you consider Israel as having a socialist government? They have a national single payer national health care system. Are they dumber then us or they have determined the single payer system saves money? Or maybe they care more for their fellow citizens?
Reply to this comment
by curiousQ September 8, 2009 6:37 PM EDT
ok please excuse me.. I'm a little off subject... but I keep reading this bit of information, and please feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting it: Apparently, our congressmen do not have understand a bill before they sign it. According to what I've read, they seem to be okay with signing a bill they have not read... simply because they "didn't have the time."

are we kidding? am I hallucinating? these people are not held accountable for not even reading a bill before signing it? a bill that could change the future of an entire nation... this is legal? Congress has the responsibility of determining the path of a country, yet they are held to the same standard of accountability as a 6 year old.. They just looked surprised when the US' affairs go down the poo-poo-shoot because of their lack of "time". Well, I suppose the surprised look is genuine..

I just don't get it... please... someone tell me I have this all wrong.

If it is true, this is how I shall behave whenever I cannot honor a contractual obligation: "well... I didn't have time to read it, but I still signed it... oh well." The only difference is I would not get off the hook for such blatent irresponsibility... I would get sued or jailed.
Reply to this comment
by proudscot September 8, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
If I go to a hospital here (Scotland) I get treated, regardless of the complaint, no questions asked.
Supposing, just supposing, someone without insurance had been in the World TRADE Centre 9/11. And been rescued. But injured.
Throw them out of hospital?
Get real.
Your country is a disgrace if you cannot treat human beings just because they cant afford it, and if you reduced the amount spent every year inventing and building new things to blow people to bits by just one tenth, you'd be left with more than enough to treat everyone in your country, and some of the illegals too. They're human beings, believe it or not.
I saw one get treated recently in a hospital here, and his blood was RED!
Land of the free my A*%
Reply to this comment
by Questionews September 8, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
Under this bill, will illegals still be able to walk into the hospital emergency room & get things checked out like:

Sore back
A cough.
Stiff neck
Pulled muscle
Nausea / upset stomach
Stuffy nose
Headaches

My sister is an in house pharmacist at a large hospital in Sacramento & she sees it all day long. Most of the illegals view the hospital emergency room as their doctor's office and they come in all the time with just such ailments & the hospitals continue to treat them without being provided any ID or address. The bill goes where?? Down the rabbit hole! I don't see that practice ending anytime soon.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 September 8, 2009 2:58 PM EDT
by Acehacker1 September 8, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
It has become apparent that the Prez can't get HR3200 passed (even by 52 votes in the Senate) with a "Public Option" in place. So does he opt for leaving the left out to dry and pass a compromise or does he try to pass this. He (and even pelosi) knows that it will not pass in the house.

So does B.O. ditch the left and try to get "some" legislation passed or does he back the failed play? This will be interesting.







Is that what Limbaugh said?

Brainless lemming.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 September 8, 2009 2:49 PM EDT
by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
Why can you not comprehend the simplest of concepts, Hungry?






Okay stupid, let me break it down as simply as I can:

Check fraud is a crime.

Is it REQUIRED in the penal law system, that banks MUST verify someone's ID before accepting a check from them, or do they do it voluntarily, so that they don't get "stung" by a bad check? They don't HAVE to check ID if they don't want to - there's NO LAW that requires it. But banks do it, because they don't want to get burnt. If someone says that they don't have an ID, they don't get their check cashed.





The same thing will happen with health care. If someone CANNOT prove their identity, then HOW can the hospital bill the services and treatment back to the government's "public option"?

They can't.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 September 8, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
by Acehacker1 September 8, 2009 2:39 PM EDT
There is only so much poo that you can swallow in the name of "party"!







I don't know about that.

You conservatives swallow up the BS from the right, like you're all individual sewage treatment plants.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 September 8, 2009 2:38 PM EDT
by Acehacker1 September 8, 2009 2:36 PM EDT
Mort: Why do you keep bothering to address this guy?






He can't stand "facts" and he tries desperately to fight them all the time.

I don't know why.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
Okay Ace...after Hungry's latest post, I believe I have seen the error of my ways, as you pointed out. So I too will put Hungry on ignore...as it is truly a waste of time continuing with him.

Thanks again, Ace.
by hungry1968-16 September 8, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:27 PM EDT
Again, Hungry...answer the question. Why are Dems opposed to putting an enforcement clause i nthe bill that states healthcare providers must discern citizenship BEFORE treating the patient (obviously except in emergency circumstances)? Why are they opposed to putting teeth in the bill?







Asked and answered at 2:29.

And AGAIN - the law states that the public option WILL NOT pay for treatments on illegal aliens, so why would a hospital voluntarily NOT CHECK the patient for ID to make sure they are legal citizens?

Do you REALLY think they're going to take a chance on getting stuck with a bill, or end up performing procedures for free?!?!?



Man, you are clueless!!!
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
Why can you not comprehend the simplest of concepts, Hungry?
by hungry1968-16 September 8, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
Yep. They bil lthe government all the time for things that arent checked on.






That's called fraud, and people go to jail for it.

Yet another lie debunked.

Next.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
Sorry, the whole government is rife with fraud and abuse. It never ends. Even when a few go to jail. Sorry...another Hungry statement debunked as usual!
See all 255 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook