An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama’s Health Care Struggle – Waterloo or Water Down? (Guest Voice)

67116_600.jpg


Obama’s Health Care Struggle – Waterloo or Water Down?

by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Push finally came to shove in Washington this week as the battle for health care escalated from scattered sniper fire into all-out combat. If it all seems to be getting more and more confusing, join the club. It’s hard to see what’s happening through all the gun smoke. The Republicans have more than health care reform in their bombsights – they want a loss for Obama so crushing it will bring the administration to its knees and restore GOP control of Congress after next year’s elections. In the words of Republican Senator Jim DeMint, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

The “Waterloo” of DeMint’s metaphor, of course, is not the 1974 Abba hit but the battle in 1815 that ended Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule as Emperor of France – a humiliating defeat and a turning point in European history. Right wingers like Glenn Beck see Obama as Napoleon incarnate, a popular emperor who must be stopped.

Here’s what Beck said on his television show Monday, July 20: “I’m telling you, this guy is dangerous. He’s never lost before. He won’t understand… like, ‘Who are you to question me?’ I mean, this guy is practically an imperial President now. When he starts to lose and people start to question him and push him back against the wall, he’s not gonna know how to react.”

The Republican strategy is almost identical to the way they turned health care into Waterloo for Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1993. Back then, one of their chief propagandists, William Kristol, urged his party to block any health care plan for fear that Democrats would be seen as “the generous protector of middle class interests.” Now he’s telling the GOP to “go for the kill… throw the kitchen sink… drive a stake through its heart… We need to start over.”

So in lockstep are the Republicans that when strategist Alex Castellanos issued a memo outlining their battle plan, party chairman Michael Steele parroted large sections of it word for word in a speech at Washington’s National Press Club. Asked a health care-related question that took him off script, Steele replied, “I don’t do policy.”

As the Republicans fired away, big business stepped up the attack, too, their lobbying and advertising guns blazing. The Chamber of Commerce, for one, announced a major campaign of rallies and print and Internet ads to crush the White House plan for a competitive public option allowing consumers to choose between a government plan and private health insurance. In key states where members of Congress remain on the fence, the airwaves are vibrating with television commercials aimed at shifting hearts and minds away from any change that might threaten profits.

President Obama rejected the Republicans’ Waterloo metaphor and mounted a massive media counteroffensive of his own. But the President has already run into booby traps of his own making and minefields laid by members of his own party, exacerbated when the Congressional Budget Office reported that reform plans, instead of controlling costs, would send the national debt further into the stratosphere.

Meanwhile, supporters who want to scrap the present system for fundamental change are staring glumly though the fog of war at a battlefield in total disarray. They fear that in the White House’s desire to get a bill – any bill – passed by Congress, it will have been so compromised, so bent to favor the big interests, that it will be less Waterloo than water down, a steady diluting of the change they had hoped for and that America needs.

The big drug companies are already so pleased with what they’ve been promised that they’ve brought back Harry and Louise – the make-believe couple who starred in TV ads that helped torpedo the Clinton health care plan – but this time they’re in favor of reform.

According to the Associated Press, the drug industry’s tradegroup PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) and the drug company Pfizer “reported spending more money than other health care organizations on lobbying in the second quarter of this year” – $6.2 million from PhRMA, $5.6 million from Pfizer.

“Including its latest report, PhRMA has now spent $13.1 million lobbying so far this year. Pfizer has reported $11.7 million in lobbying expenses for 2009.”

This is part of the reason, as Alicia Mundy and Laura Meck recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, that “the pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to ‘take on’ during hiscampaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul.”

Their story describes “a string of victories” plucked from the Senate Finance Committee by drug company lobbyists, including no cost-cutting steps, no cheaper drugs to be allowed across the border from Canada, and no direct Federal government negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies to lower Medicare drug prices.

And that’s not all.

The Senate Health Committee is giving the biotech industry monopoly protection against competition from generic drugs for 12 years after they go on the market. No wonder the cost of reform keeps going up and up and up.

Could it be that Harry and Louise are happier because, this time, they’re in on the deal?

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at
www.pbs.org/moyers. Research provided by editorial producer Rebecca Wharton.

UPDATE: ObamaCare: Delayed or dead?

The cartoon by Jeff Parker, Florida Today, is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

  • AustinRoth
  • "As the Republicans fired away, big business stepped up the attack, too, their lobbying and advertising guns blazing."

    You mean those "big businesses" that have a payroll of about $250,000? That's what the bill says. When Obama said he wanted to help the "mom and pop" businesses, he meant that literally. As long as they don't hire the uncle and a few cousins. Then they would qualify as a big evil business.

    "The Senate Health Committee is giving the biotech industry monopoly protection against competition from generic drugs for 12 years after they go on the market. No wonder the cost of reform keeps going up and up and up."

    You mean that same patent laws that have existed since the start of our country, and are essential to driving innovation by insuring that inventors can profit from their work?
  • Being pro-free market does not necessarily always translate to supporting perfectly free trade, particularly when that trade is with a country that does not operate on free market principles.

    The reason drug prices are cheaper in Canada is because they have price controls. Drugs are expensive to develop, but cheap to manufacture once they have been developed. So, drug companies have to recoup their costs somehow. They do so by adding the R&D costs to the drugs. This makes perfect sense in a free market system. However, since Canada caps how much drugs can cost, the drug companies have to sell them for cheaper there. They are willing to do so because they still make more than it costs to manufacture the drugs, and can recoup the R&D costs by selling to American consumers for more. In effect, Canada piggy-backs on the American system in order to get cheap drugs, without having to pay the cost to develop those drugs.

    If Americans were allowed to buy cheap drugs from Canada, drug companies would not be able to recoup the cost of R&D, and therefore there would be less innovation in drug development.

    Here's a link to a better description of the problem: http://www.slate.com/id/1005389/

    I would support regulation that forces drug companies based in the US to charge the same amount, no matter where the sell the product. Drug companies would then have to choose between two things:

    1) Reduce the cost of drugs to US consumers.
    2) Stop selling to Canada.

    In reality, it would probably be a mix of those things. The drug companies would be more resistant to selling to Canada, which means there would be pressure on Canada to loosen its price controls. At the same time the price in the US would fall since drug companies would still make an effort to sell their products to other countries that have more reasonable price controls. The only problem with that is poor countries that need drugs but can't afford what Americans pay. Maybe we can make an exception in those cases, but only on the condition that those drugs are not imported back into the US.
  • redbus
    The government can't run a lemonade stand, no less the entire health care system. Obama's plan should be defeated.
  • qwert321
    Damn straight. That was one of the more disappointing fractures within my party. I think some of us tend to forget that we're not pro-business but rather pro-free market.
  • Kastanj
    "no cheaper drugs to be allowed across the border from Canada"

    Way to stand up for capitalist values, capitalists.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC