The Point Is Health Care Reform, Not GOP Support
Health care reform is about to die because Democrats cannot handle being the majority in Congress, or having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate:
A House fight among Democrats on overhauling the nation’s healthcare system has spread to the Senate, where centrists and liberals are clashing over the direction the legislation should take.
Trouble is brewing now that a bipartisan group of senators — led by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) — has signaled it will exclude a government-run insurance option from the committee’s draft legislation that could be marked up next week.
Leaving it out would be a major step toward attracting Republican support for President Barack Obama’s signature issue. But it also would alienate liberals, who say the effort is wasted without it and are preparing a barrage of amendments for the Finance markup.
This remark made by Olympia Snowe perfectly encapsulates the problem here:
“What we do obviously would be important to our Republican conference,” said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a member of the GOP team, along with Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the finance panel, and Mike Enzi (Wyo.), the senior Republican on the health committee. Snowe said the primary goal of the negotiations is a bill that can draw Republican votes.
“Drawing Republican votes” should not be the primary goal of the negotiations. The primary goal(s) of the negotiations should be (1) to halt and reduce the skyrocketing cost of health care in the United States, and (2) to insure most, if not all, of the 47 million Americans who have no insurance coverage or are underinsured. Any proposal that is strong enough to do that stands an excellent chance of gaining my support.
Barbara O’Brien put it aptly in her post yesterday responding to the New York Times article written by the wall hangings-and-junk-food-obsessed David Herszenhorn and Robert Pear:
“We Don’t Need Bleeping Broad Bipartisan Agreement,” she gently pointed out:
I read this first thing this morning, and I cannot tell you how sick I feel. That the lives of Americans rest with this corrupt little crew — at least some of them are essentially sponsored by Big Pharma and other parts of the medical-industrial complex, who are major campaign contributors — is beyond outrageous. It is the utter failure of American democracy in microcosm.
My favorite quote:
“If this is the only bill with bipartisan support,” Ms. Snowe said, “that will really resonate. It could be the linchpin for broad bipartisan agreement.”
And we need broad bipartisan agreement so much more than we need health care.
These people need to hear from us[.]
She then gives the names and complete contact information for the Gang of Six.
Brava, Maha.
17 Responses to “The Point Is Health Care Reform, Not GOP Support”
The primary goal(s) of the negotiations should be (1) to halt and reduce the skyrocketing cost of health care in the United States, and (2) to insure most, if not all, of the 47 million Americans who have no insurance coverage or are underinsured. Any proposal that is strong enough to do that stands an excellent chance of gaining my support.
So, which proposal does those things?
The finance bill is probably the least bipartisan bill with the worst math and reasoning.
And this for icing on the cake………..
Obamas rent Republican's $20 million house on Martha's Vineyard
Looks like once again rational approaches are being subverted by politics. Hmmm… where else have we seen this happen? (over and over and over again…) The politization of science during the last prez tenure comes to mind. And yes, bipartisanship for it's own sake is a loser.
I disagree Kathy. The health care bill needs bipartisan support and bipartisan blessings. Because health care can be a life or death issue. It is in the best interests of every American citizen for this bill to be argued over, revised, re-revised, flipped, cajoled, and massaged in a bipartisan way so we as a country can move this forward united. If the current Democratic and Republican leadership can't work it out, then it shouldn't be. 'Nuff said.
“because Democrats cannot handle being the majority in Congress, or having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate”
[chuckle] Nice resentment as well as illogical claim supporting your obvious kind of “bi-partisanship” (GOP is expected to comply with every Dem goal and demand, and ram junk past them if they don't)…
Not only has more and more of the public awakened to the problems with this health care initative, that is being rushed so stupidly like the other Dem initiatives (which only the stupid support wholeheartedly). Now even a number of Dems are concerned, not only because of the initiative itself, but because of the public's awakening and what it means for their re-election prospects. All but the worst still among the public and among the Dems in Washington already realize this.
Why would that be 'icing on the cake'? I would assume that the Obamas would, for security purposes, need to RENT a estate with very large grounds and on Martha's Vineyard a property fitting that description other than the Kennedy's most of the Mansions on Martha's Vineyard are owned by very wealthy Republicans.
Had he only followed the Nixon / Regan example he would OWN a $20 million dollar house to vacation at instead of having to rent it.
“Looks like once again rational approaches are taking a back seat to politics.”
Yes, in the case of hard-core Dem and agitator-extremist insistence on continuing the rushed idiocy, and of their resentment of those who oppose or merely Question why we should rush this idiocy, but what we're seeing is that while the diseased core of proponents still insists on rushing this without answering the many questions and concerns that are raised, more and more of the public and even Dems in Washington aren't as politically dogmatic.
“So, which proposal does those things?”
Not only is the current health care initiative (in whatever form it happens to have _today_, or _this_hour_) deficient, but aren't there related, more important things, that could be done instead?
Obviously it's above the reach of too many when noting that there was no need to rush this new health initiative, and to go into the problems with this, but Obama's latest “campaign” silliness, with the AARP, where he claimed Medicare was great, is an example of something more important that could be tackled and which would earn respect.
Didn't Obama promise he would face what is long overdue, the need to reform federal entitlements, which are unsustainable, and which includes Medicare, whose costs Obama has separately said need reducing?
Why doesn't he “repair” and “save” Medicare (as well as Social Security) first, before trying (in currently a very poor and negligent and incomplete way) to extend federal health care entitlements to many more, new, beneficiaries?
Oh, sorry — that would be the most sensible, fundamental as well as logical, thing to do first, even before other alternatives (involving Medicare, Medicaid, and VA) that are clearly superior to what is being sought should be considered.
Of course, it's _Obama_ who spoke about entitlement reform, and who would be accompanied by the Dems in Washington, particularly those at the forefront of this current defective health care initiative, as well as being of absolutely no value and constituting nothing but blind, stupid opposition during the Bush years. (Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature expect the Dems to reform entitlements, ever?)
No wonder the intelligent public had no faith from the beginning with this effort, and more and more of the public is concerned now, not only with the events related to this heatlh care initiative but after the experience to date with the Dems with other issues (“stimulus,” climate craziness, and so forth). How many actually believe Obama (and other Dems) will reform entitlements (rather than create new ones)?
“Why doesn't he 'repair' and 'save' Medicare (as well as Social Security) first, before trying (in currently a very poor and negligent and incomplete way) to extend federal health care entitlements to many more, new, beneficiaries? before other alternatives (involving Medicare, Medicaid, and VA) that are clearly superior to what is being sought should be considered”
As I just wrote on another thread on this site, this never was difficult. Only the idiots chose to make it so.
But health care needs consensus. It's too important and too far reaching.
Consensus among a group of six conservative Democratic and Republican senators is meaningless, T. It's not consensus on any kind of larger level. “Consensus” among six conservative senators on a health care reform proposal that does nothing or very little to provide coverage to 47 million uninsured Americans is not consensus even in Congress as a whole, much less on a larger societal level. There's no point in passing a health care reform bill that does not reform health care simply because that represents “consensus” in a conference room on Capitol Hill.
Why would that be 'icing on the cake'?
Only because some other left leaning blogs have been wondering why the champion of hope, change and “we've got to do something about healthcare now” chooses a vacation instead of continuing to visibly work the issue that is now approaching its final swirl in the white porcelain bowl..
TS: The health care bill needs to work. The country isn't united and that's not going to change regardless of what bill passes. If the Democrats aren't willing to pass a bill just because it doesn't have enough GOP votes that makes them useless scrubs.
Bipartisan support is a waste a time. If the blue dogs and republicans write the legislation eliminating important democratic policies, when the votes come on the final bill in both houses, the legislation will have to pass without any Republican or Blue Dog support. So why waste any time getting more votes than 1 plus 1/2 the total in each body for final passage. I will hope that the conference committee will come up with a better third and final bill between the House, Senate and Administration. Remember at the last moment in the conference committee meetings over the stimulus package, the Administration added $8 billion for high speed rail that was not in either the House or Senate versions, though they both increased mass transit and Amtrak funding signficiantly. Never think the process is over until it is really over. It may be better to take some major reforms and then come back for more reforms in 2 to 3 years as financially we will have to reconsider the entire existing system. Best wishes from a fellow blogger – MP in PHX
That's just silly…
George W. Bush spent:
487 days vacationing at Camp David
490 days vacationing at Crawford Ranch
43 days vacationing at Kennebunkport Compound
1020 days out of his 2944 days in “office” (sic) on vacation… 35% of his presidency on vacation.
Congress is taking the month of August off, too, but you seem to think somethings amiss with the Obama's taking some time off, too. As I said at the start, that's just silly.
A group of Oregon physicians are Mad As Hell that our political process being hijacked by The Industry (again!) to create public policy that is more about profits than public good. It is not taking us closer the ONLY route to true universal access that won't break the bank: a single risk pool, aka Single Payer. We are going to travel from Oregon to D.C. in September, along the way offering people a venue for expressing their anger and finding media attention to bring the message beyond the choir.
Information? MadAsHellDoctors.com No fooling. This is really happening.
Republicans have ruined this country every time they had a chance, now they are trying to boycott healthcare to favor their criminal private insurance companies that are making bundles of money on sick people.
They have no interest on making the country healthier.