Obama Ally Throws Cold Water On Health Care

During the course of the presidential campaign, Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-Mont.) was often rumored to be on then Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential short list. At the Democratic National Convention he gave one of the most crowd-pleasing speeches -- a blue-collared take on Democratic politics with a healthy dose of acid-tongue pokes at Sen. John McCain's wealth.

Now, however, Schweitzer isn't doing the president any favors, becoming one of the highest-profiled Democrats outside of Washington to throw cold water on health care reform.

Appearing on C-SPAN Sunday morning, Schweitzer said that the legislation currently making its way through Congress would unfairly burden states by requiring them to pay for a portion of the expanded coverage at a time when budgets are tight and pushing for growth in Medicaid.

"I have a lot of concerns as a governor," Schweitzer said from the National Governors Association meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi. "Now, let me lay this out, there are only a few states that have a budget surplus, we are one them, we have about $400 million in cold hard cash in the bank. Very few states have got that. And we got there through good fiscal management. You can't put more things on your plate than you can afford to pay for. Now what is happening in Congress right now, things that disturb us as governors, is first they are looking at the rules and one of the proposals would be that the way we are going to pay for a portion of this health care is we will turn to the states and ask them to bond, to pay for some of the health care. They want to do some financial trickery, simply stated, we can't afford what we are doing today so we will get the states to borrow some money. Well we are not going to do that, because it is going to hurt our bond rating. We as states, we have as prizes our bond rating and this would tend to decrease our bond rating. By the way, the federal government, if Congress wants to have a health care program, then they need to pay for it. They can't dump it back on the states."

"The second problem we have is that one of the least effective programs in terms of health care, in the history of this country, is something called Medicaid," the Montana Democrat added. "About 20 percent of America is on a Medicaid program and they would like to shift it and grow it to somewhere around 25 or 30 percent. In Montana's case alone it would add 115 million dollars to our costs in our state, as our match. Now Medicaid is a system that isn't working, almost everyone agrees. But what Congress intends to do is increase the number [of people] on Medicaid so they could do it for the cheap. It is not working for anybody."

Fortunately for the Obama White House, Schweitzer ultimately won't have a vote on health care legislation. But his skepticism doesn't help the administration's argument that Washington is out of touch with the American public. And having a prominent ally express doubts publicly is not something the president wants right now. And it wouldn't be much of a shocker if Schweitzer were to get a call sometime this week from his former gubernatorial colleague, current Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Or maybe even Obama himself.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[ReedYoung]

2nd

Schweitzer is angling for notoriety instead of serving the people, either of the United States or of Montana. A brief analysis of real budget numbers reveals that his state has a budget surplus less because of "good fiscal management" than because of federal government money spent in Montana.
[
"Now, let me lay this out, there are only a few states that have a budget surplus, we are one them, we have about $400 million in cold hard cash in the bank. Very few states have got that. And we got there through good fiscal management."
]
Nice try.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
From 1981 - 2005 Montana received $33.977 Billion more federal government spending than it has contributed to the federal budget, which is more than eight times the measly $0.4 Billion or "about $400 million in cold hard cash in the bank" that Schweitzer wants to pretend got there only "through good fiscal management." So, Governor Schweitzer, we can do this one of two ways. The preferred method is that you pony up your fair share for your country, to promote the general welfare by providing basic medical care to all citizens as needed. Your other option is that the federal funds for all other projects in Montana cease, but you continue to be taxed until you've paid back the $34,000,000,000 of federal gifts you've received since 1982. Which looks to you like it would be better for Montanans?

[fishgirl26]

Ok, I LIVE in Montana...it is my homestate. Montana is 48th in wages in the nation and has a high cost of living (thanks all you Californians that have moved in and driven property prices through the roof!!) and the cost of healthcare for Montanans is just as high as everywhere else but we have to do it with less base wage. I am disappointed that Brian has chosen to take this course. Perhaps BCBS kicked him a little goodness during the last election however, he does need to think of Montanans first and I can tell you that employer based healthcare in Montana does not cover many as most small businesses (and they are many as we are not a corporate giant state) can't afford it. Should some of the cost of taking care of older Montanans (medicare) and other Montanans falls on the state perhaps if we make out of state property owners who have seasonal residences in Montana pay more property taxes then we will be able to afford it. Well Brian????

[Dbos]

Governors worry the fed wont help with costs of Health Care change. The Prez needs to reassure.

[blueken]

By takeing the middle road, Democrats and Obama are losing support. We don't need to add to the collosal boondoggel we need to simplify. Everybody who is healthy pays for the few that are sick. One entity that takes our money and spends it on health care. One entity with one billing form for doctors, hospitals and clinics. One entity that negotiates with drug companies and makes sure the American people don't spend more on drugs than the French, English, German, Canadian people do. Take profit out of health care. Let the insurance industry find another way to make money. Stop the madness. Single payer, univeral health care, not compromise.

[Bronxdude]

Brian Schweitzer--he has been corrupted by special interest money.

[Bronxdude]

Forget bipartisanship; true reform will provide affordable and competitive options that include a public offering. As it stands right now, UnitedHealthcare can deny medical care, restrict physician choice and authorize exorbitant copays and deductibles with no oversight. Real reform will end the monopolistic strangle-hold enjoyed by morally bankrupt insurers like UnitedHealthcare. In Georgia, UnitedHealthcare colluded with corrupt republican officials to eliminate Blue Cross and Blue Shield as a competitor, with the end result being higher premiums, reduced benefits, and greater profit for UnitedHealthcare. The health insurance industry (and the despicable republicans they bankroll) will not retreat quietly from billions in annual profits! I want the same public option Congress and the military enjoy. Real choice will end the single profiteer, monopolistic option extorting Americans.

[Bronxdude]

In collusion with parasitic health insurers, the Reagan deregulated, for-profit medical culture has systematically plundered the middleclass, while self-serving republican­s—silenced by kickbacks—­acquiesce. Since obstructionistic republicans sanction the looting of the middleclass by the same ruthless insurers they deregulated, we need the government between the public and greed-driven insurance profiteers. Profit at the expense of human suffering is antithetical to the precepts of democracy. True competition will lower health costs and the cost of health insurance. State employees in Georgia have no due process patient protection rights, a negotiated constraint that gives UnitedHealthcare carte blanche to deny medical care with no oversight. Real competition will end the monopolistic stranglehold enjoyed by morally bankrupt insurers like UnitedHealthcare. If competition is the lynchpin of free-market capitalism, then why is UnitedHealthcare afraid to compete against the feds? Limiting choice drives up cost, increasing profit for a select few, which is why republican hacks defend extortion of the middleclass by opportunistic insurers. Through mendacious scare tactics, republicans curry favor and rouse baseless fear by preaching that reform will lead to rationed healthcare and restrictions on patient/doctor choice. Bull! Contrary to specious talking points propagated by self-serving republicans short on solutions, as it stands right now, without real marketplace competition, insurers not only dictate the cost of healthcare, but they also get to pick and choose who gets coverage and medical care. Despicable republicans will not retreat quietly from millions in lobbyist payoffs. Public option now!

[Bronxdude]

If competition is the lynchpin of capitalism, then let the greed-driven health insurance providers compete with the feds for my business. Limiting choice drives costs up, increasing profit for a select few, which is why republicans support the monopolistic advantage health insurance companies enjoy. Since obstructionistic republicans embrace the methodical pilfering of Americans by ruthless corporations like UnitedHealthcare, this is why we need the government between the public and parasitic health insurance providers. Through mendacious scare tactics, republicans distract and whip up baseless fear by cautioning Americans that reform will lead to rationed healthcare, with the end result being that the feds will come between the patient and their doctor. Contrary to specious talking points authored by self-serving republicans long on rhetoric and short on substance, as it stands right now, without true marketplace competition a public option will generate, unregulated health insurance companies dictate not only the cost of my healthcare, but how, when, and where I receive medical care. Republicans are bankrolled and controlled by the same health insurance industry they fought to deregulate, which is why they defend the extortion of the American public by these opportunistic companies. Historically, deregulation inspires corruption, which is the case in Georgia, where the Insurance Commissioner, an elected republican, is under investigation for receiving illegal contributions from the same health insurance providers he is tasked with regulating. The majority of Americans want a public option because the current system is rigged against them.

[Bronxdude]

Tort reform is the republican answer to the health insurance crisis undermining America. Incompetent and substandard doctors kill or injury thousands of people everyday, and the republican response to this spiraling epidemic is to place a cap on liability claims, which in their deluded state of reality will reduce healthcare cost by reducing malpractice settlements. Malarkey! Making incompetent doctors unaccountable will not lower healthcare cost, just their malpractice premiums. Like any profession, if greed-driven doctors want lower liability premiums and few lawsuits, then they need to police their ranks and drive out those responsible for driving up the cost of malpractice insurance. While doctors will talk amongst themselves about incompetent doctors, they never report them to the Medical Board. Instead, they allow them to quietly relocate to another state, so they can continue practicing dangerous medicine. It’s no surprise why crooked republicans silenced by payoffs and kickbacks would ruthlessly push reform that punishes the victim and rewards the perpetrator. The military is notorious for commissioning doctors who have had their license revoked or suspended. Unlike civilian doctors, military doctors don’t have to have a license from the state where they practice; instead, they can shop around, conceal their malpractice history, and get licensed in a state with less stringent requirements, since the military does not require their doctors to carry liability insurance, and they can’t be sued for negligence. Competition via the public option choice will drive down cost and impede republican profiteering.

[chaz]

God forbid we tax the top five or ten percent in order to pay for health care or social security or anything else but it's always considered a good idea to tax the middle class and the poor.
Wake up!

Insist on.
Single payer now. Fire morning joe. Publicly financed elections. Limit media ownership.

[FWDpost]

Schweitzer is a darling of the Democratic Leadership Council, so, guess what, the corporations told him to delay, destroy, defeat healthcare reform. Where did the writer get the headline ally? The DLC is not Obama's ally.

[RoloTomassi]

I suspect that Gov. Brian Schweitzer's take on the current healthcare reform effort aren't unusual among democratic governors; almost all of them are under the gun far worse than he is.

But when you take off the pro-Obama rose-colored glasses and see strictly through the lense of pro-REAL healthcare reform, he has a very good point, and one that only reinforces the assertions that what we really need to get viable, longterm workable healthcare reform is 1) a true single-payer or non-profit insurance system, and 2) be rid once and for all of the current healthcare insurance industry.

Under different circumstances perhaps an incremental approach would have been the better route, but I fear that the fiscal realities will cause the public option to morph into a watered-down half-measure, and rather than take a serious look at a single-payer approach as an alternative, healthcare reform will be killed-off, or the public option will be adopted yet modified to the point of uselessness....

[medicinecat]

Another one of Obama'a neo-con buddies stabs him in the back. Mr. President, what do you see in these guys? You don't need 'em, we never liked 'em, time to kick 'em to the curb and start pleasing us, the folks who voted for change.

[RoloTomassi]

A simplistic, wholly Obama fanboy-driven assessment of his comments and how they are relevant to the issue at hand....

[toosinbeymen]

Not to disparage your good fiscal management but Montana is one of the states that receives more money from the Feds than it gives in federal taxes. Alaska gets a lot more than it gives.

Otherwise, come on Gov Schweitzer, let's get real about what health care reform means. I would pay Cobra health insurance $612 per month. If the federal or state government was covering that expense through a Public Plan, shouldn't I expect my federal or state taxes to go up by some amount up to $612 per month?

[RRoadrunner]

If there ever was a reason for a single payer plan I just read it. Instead of haggling over who’s going to pay for HCR simplify it with a single payer system at the federal level.