Axelrod, Grassley Spar Over Bipartisan Health Care

One of Barack Obama's chief advisers and one of the key Republicans in the Senate jousted on Sunday over what constitutes bipartisanship when it comes to health care legislation.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," David Axelrod, the president's chief strategist, sought to allay criticism that the health care reform being pushed by the White House and Democrats on the Hill was being constructed without GOP support.

"The bill will be bipartisan by definition," said Axelrod. "The Senate health committee accepted 82 Republican amendments. Republican ideas will be included with this process, we hope it will come with Republican votes as well."

Host George Stephanopoulos followed the remark by noting: "That seems to be the new White House definition of bipartisanship." He appeared to be referencing the administration's approach to the stimulus package, which passed with no Republican support in the House but contained various GOP policy proposals.

"I don't think we should get consumed by process at a time when health care costs are -- you know they've doubled in this decade?" Axelrod responded. "Ultimately we'll bring the federal budget down. We have to act. We can't afford to get consumed in these types of Washington discussions."

That position was attacked in a latter segment on the same show when Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, scoffed at Axelrod's definition of bipartisanship.

"He said they put in 83 amendments," responded the Iowa Republican, missing the number Axelrod used by one. "Let me assure you, those were not changes in policy. Those were strictly technical. And Republicans are not going to hoodwinked into calling that a bipartisan bill."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[pakaal]

"He said they put in 83 amendments. Those were strictly technical. And Republicans are not going to hoodwinked into calling that a bipartisan bill."

Better than nothing. And after all, the Republican alternative - more of the same - was voted out last November. If they choose to be part of the problem, they can stand aside. We've already proved their way wasn't working.

[digeridoo2]

"Of course the bill is bi-partisan. The word 'Republican' is used 11 times in the text. Also, it is riddled with prepositional phrases - something the Republicans use frequently­."

It's comedic that Axelrod and the administration try to sell bipartisanship when no one really cares. All people want is a charismatic leader they can follow. The administration simply has to say, "The gov't will take care of you, we'll solve your problems and right all the evils inflicted upon you by the wicked Republican­s..." and everyone will fall in line. Republicans are irrelevant.

[AlaninElkGrove]

GOP votes?

We don't need no stinking GOP votes!!

LET'S GO!!!

[Lorianne]

Exactly right.
The Democrats can pass any bill they want.
Why don't they do it already?

[plaidsportcoat]

strictly techinical!

[Solja]

It's those pesky traitors called, "Blue Dogs". They have become a real problem in Congress and they really must go! These people stand in the way of progress in this country and have made it a matter of irrelevance that the Democrats are in control of both Houses.

[The Political Moose]

While the Dems don't need GOP support, they need to at least offer collaboration on healthcare reform. If they refuse or outright reject it, then cut them out. But this bill is looking like it will take up 1/5 of our country's GDP & will be the most major piece of legislation in over 40 years.

This is not something we should be force through hastily or with a closed mind. If this bill gets messed up, it'll be worse than social security.

[digeridoo2]

lol...you sound like a Republican. Who cares how much of the GDP it takes up? the richest 2% control 80% of the wealth in this country - they can cough up quite a bit for a long time before we have to look for other sources of funding.

[chacounne]

Worse than Social Security, which has kept millions of seniors out of poverty ?
That's not a bed thing.

Just my two cents

[undecidedaboutPOTUS]

What's the source or the link that estimates the cost of the bill at 2.8 trillion dollars?
Latest BEA figure for GDP (first quarter 2009) is 14 trillion.
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

[DocTwain]

What we really need is single payer. Therefore the current bill is a plutocratic sell-out and a mess.

But as for GOP input, what does health care reform have to do with the GOP? The GOP represents only the plutocrats and the cartels. Health care reform is for the People. Any input by the GOP would hurt ordinary Americans and be designed solely to benefit the ultra rich and the cartels, and kill ordinary folk (which is what our current policy does).

Too bad Obama isn't a progressive and doesn't support single payer, the most efficient, cost effective and just policy.

You GOPers have got nothing to complain about--Centrists like Obama are half Republican as it is. They're not traditional Democrats, and don't represent the People. Their goal is only to place damage-control limits on the exploitation of the People by the cartels, in order to build up the People's tolerance for another round of Bush-style extreme exploitation by the plutocrats.

[freddiefreeloader]

Isurance companies don't provide healthcare, they pay the doctors who proivide the healthcare. Why should the patients care who pays the doctors? Patients need to worry about getting better not how the doctor gets paid.

[Lorianne]

Because that's why healthcare and health insurance costs are so high now. People don't know the true cost of either.

[plaidsportcoat]

"people" are do dumb. it's obvious, nobody know the "truth" except you and your "people" eh?

[chacounne]

Because the doctors won't treat them until they know that they will get paid, nor will a hospital admit them.

Just to clarify,

[Cunningham]

Insurance companies decide what health care you can and cannot have. They are the deciders, not the doctors.

[ZeeZee]

Screw Bibartisanship. The Repubs are the biggest freakin' hypocritical crybabies on earth.

[Lorianne]

Then why don't they do it already?

[Driver125]

But Grassey...­.You can't have a bipartisan bill until the Republicans learn the real definition of the word 'bipartisan'. Just for starters, bipartisan does NOT mean Republicans get everything they want and Democrats get what's left. That's he old Bush-era definition, and in case you have not heard the American people voted that one down. Do try and keep up. Losing elections has its consequences!

[Schmice]

Barack, grow a pair and get us real health insurance reform. Please.

[GrainOSand]

==========­==========­=

"The bill will be bipartisan by definition," said Axelrod. "The Senate health committee accepted 82 Republican amendments. Republican ideas will be included with this process, we hope it will come with Republican votes as well."

...Stephan­opoulos followed the remark by noting: "That seems to be the new White House definition of bipartisan­ship." He appeared to be referencing the administration's approach to the stimulus package, which passed with no Republican support in the House but contained various GOP policy proposals.

==========­==========

Definition the same -- listen, explore for feasibility, accept the good, throw out the bad. Any GOP provision surviving considering the last eight years of performance data (if not the last thirty concerning GOP rule), that is the epitome of bipartisanship and all the administration can really control. The GOP vote remains strictly in GOP control and last checked, bipartisanship suggested a two-way street and not a stretch of railway where presidents get railroaded and roughed up by roughriders of no good ideas and no good intent.

The GOP enjoyed every chance to address healthcare reform. They started a war instead. They cut taxes instead. They started to heat up the police state apparatus. They saw their relationship with the people as adversarial and subject to manipulation. Johnny come lately populism, concern for deficits, energy solutions, and just plain old lateness leave me numb. Try again is the suggestion to the GOP. Come up with a holistic approach, one engaging/c­onsidering more versus less of the people.

[JDM73]

Please drop the charade, Mr. Axelrod. Your boy is going to be every bit as guilty as the GOP of not giving Americans what they need.

[jamesreid]

I entertained a hope that when no sensible compromise to limit the greed and selfishness of insurance companies can be reached that Obama will champion the single payer system that Americans want and need. The so far unachievable public compromise in which insurance coexists to some extent and competes with a lean effective single payer has taken decades to evolve in Britain and does not yet exist in Canada.

Like JDM73, my hope is fading as corporate health care taints, divides and spoils the Democrats chances to establish either a compromise or a single payer solution.

Despite the climate "victory," I too fear that on health care - as on Wall Street regulation - Obama will likely be high on hope and low on audacity!

[pakaal]

Meh, America was the first of its kind politically, let's see if we can learn from other countries and come up with a better health system too.

[plaidsportcoat]

you mean, your "bwah" -obviously

[kat7]

American are ripped by insurance companies for several decades now.

Per Erin Burnett and Jim Cramer, they have no real friends left except Chuck Grassley and his "paisanos" in congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXGbHsuELZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2JBKje796s

Obama has full support from voters on "public option" in order to bring health care costs down by 20-40% over next five years.

[Lorianne]

What is the 'public option'?
What are the details?

[kozy]

The Republicans demonized public health care in the 50's when I was in high school. They labeled it "Socialized Medicine." Today they still label it "Socialized Medicine" even though it is not even close to socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is where all medical people are employees of the government and hospitals and clinics are run by the government. No one of course has suggested such a thing. The real problem is that Republicans and some Democrats must abide by the orders from their insurance company masters. And the masters don't want to change the stsus quo.

[cuchulain]

Why don't we do this? Offer the America people the choice. Put it up for a national vote. Ya got two choices.

1. Single Payer for everyone. No copays, no premiums, and no out of pocket costs. Health care insurance from one source, the government. Paid via taxes.

2. The current ad hoc system of private insurance, with thousands of different plans, and hundreds of different companies. You pay premiums, copays and out of pocket expenses.

Roughly 50 million Americans have no insurance currently. The government spends roughly 100 billion per year for those uninsured, in addition to Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Under our current system, doctors and hospitals end up losing tens of billions of dollars a year, due to emergency room services that are never paid for.

Pick #1 or #2.

[plaidsportcoat]

That is an old statistic. Millions of people who are out of work this year now have no health insurance. Let's try for accuracy and let's start saying 55 million with no health insurance.

[ncmom54]

the Voters decided this on Election Day...

# 2 was NOT chosen

(Demand for Public Health Care is bipartisan­... except in Congress)

[dhosack]

The Dims and Axelrod included are not interested in providing quality healthcare. I work with Medicare and VA patients everyday and provide care that the recipients are forced to pay for. Make no mistake, this program will finish off this country economically. The fewer and fewer taxpayers that support this country will not be able to maintain the Obama vision.

[teron678]

sure ....... whatever you say

[cuchulain]

Huh?

America is one of the least taxed nations in the world. We pay just 28% of our GDP in taxes. Only Korea and Mexico are lower, by about 2%. Sweden pays more than 50%, and they have a hell of a lot more to show for it.

Tax rates for the wealthy in America are near all time lows. The tax burden for corporations has never been lower. In the 40s, they covered roughly 30% of the total tax pie. In the 50s it was roughly 25%. It's less than 7% now. In the last decade, the GAO found that 2/3rds of American corporations paid NO taxes, and 90% of them paid 5% or less.

The wealthy live in a capitalist paradise here.

If you're not one of the wealthy, one on earth would you want to defend them and help INCREASE the gap between you and the rich? If you aren't wealthy, why drink their koolaid?

[JeffyBoy]

That all sounds real nice, but the reality is when you start forcing the wealthy to support a welfare state, they will take THIER $$$ to a more friendly place. Then you have nobody to support the welfare state. California is a good example of what will happen nationaly.

I don't need or want the Gov. to be my baby sitter, and dictate my life to me. Maybe you Libs need that , but I'm not paying your way or anybody eles. There is already to many free rides. This country has made it to easy to sit home and live off the sweat of those of us who choose to work.

Obama has already lost 53 billion bucks and has only been in 5 mounths. You can put your trust in that if you want to. He has given billions to fat cat businessmen that got us into this mess. Thats change YOU can believe in.

[plaidsportcoat]

paid republitroll

[sanity2008]

Forget the Republicans. They forgot the American people a long time ago. They never cared about bipartisanship. The railroaded everything they could through without regard to the consequences to the American people, other than the wealthy and corporations.

[Balzac]

This is one issue on which Axelrod's toughness is important.