John Nichols, Terry O'Neill On 'Bill Moyers': Health Care Overhaul Needs More Reforms (VIDEO)

Bill Moyers tackles health care reform Friday evening on "Bill Moyers Journal" in an interview with journalist John Nichols of The Nation and women's advocate and NOW President Terry O'Neill.

While both Nichols and O'Neill agree that the Democratic overhaul of health care has brought the nation's health care system to a place where real reform is possible, they say that without further changes, the bill is insufficient.

O'Neill says that she's worried that the abortion language in the health care reform bill could eventually lead to insurers dropping abortion care. She blames the Hyde amendement, legislation that keeps federal funds from paying for abortions.

O'Neill: Hyde is the basis for this language that actually got into the law that actually, according to the George Washington School of Public Health, this law, if it's not changed, Over a period of years, insurance companies -- all insurance companies in all plans -- will eventually conclude that it is too much trouble to offer abortion coverage at all. 87 percent of private insurance policies today cover abortion care. That goes away if we don't make changes to this law.

Nichols argues that the only mistake progressives could make would be to defend the health care reform law as it was passed.

Nichols: The fact is, this bill is never going to be repealed. It's not going to be thrown out. We've opened up a great debate in this country.... The only mistake that progressives would make would be to think that it is the job of progressives to defend this bill as is. If there are pulls from the left and the right, then the compromises if you will, will be in a good direction. If there are not pulls from the left. If the left simply becomes an amen corner for the bill that was passed. It will get steadily worse because all of the noice will come from the right

WATCH:

Comments

[Jeff Norman]

04:22 PM on 03/28/2010

Under what circumstances - if any - is it constitutional for the government to require us to buy a commercial product?

[mostly amused]

06:01 PM on 03/28/2010

Hi Jeff,
It's unprecedented for the federal government. Massachusetts mandates that residents purchase health insurance. Challenges have not been successful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legal_challenges.

Most likely, the federal government will defend the bill as a tax / tax credit scheme rather than a commerce clause act. Congress has plenary power to write tax law, so that would be a slam dunk.

I don't like the mandate, but I do understand its justification: you need a mandate if you want to cover pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, people would buy in only after they got sick and opt out when they got better.

I would rather see taxes pay for universal coverage, but apparently that is untenable due to the power of entrenched interests and the deficit that was created largely through military spending.

I think the government is wise to have eschewed the public option. That would have created a "troubled asset" insurance company, where the government option is the one covering the high risk, high cost participants; and the private insurance companies are the ones cherry-picking the pool to reach even greater profits given the windfall the mandate provides.

[Jeff Norman]

12:28 PM on 03/31/2010

Thanks, mostly amused.

The Massachusetts situation has nothing to do with what authority Congress has or doesn't have.

Any financial penalty could conceivably be structured as a tax. The question you seem not to have contemplated is: What is the limit to what can be taxed?

That Congress has the authority to tax doesn't explain why you believe establishing the constitutionality of the individual mandate is a "slam dunk."

The claim that Congress has the power to force us to engage in a commercial transaction, is unprecedented. As such, it requires an explanation.

Got one?

[Coyote50]

09:19 PM on 03/27/2010

Alan Grayson is awesome -- we have to keep fighting for the public option or buy-in to medicare to keep the costs down and make health care available to everyone. Grayson has 80 members signed on as of now -- it's clear that they will need to have more reform to the reform. Go Dems!

[mostly amused]

02:06 PM on 03/27/2010

I watched the whole thing on tv last night. Terry O'Neill is not a good spokesperson for women or a pro-choice position. She is zealous for sure but she appears strident, incapable of reading the political landscape, and disrespectful of other's reasonably held views.

Women have the right to have an abortion. Obama's executive order did not change that. In order to cast herself as an activist, O'Neill is distorting this truth in order to create a crisis only she or NOW can resolve. As a leader, she's as credible now as Sarah Palin, a birther, or an angry pissant tea partier.

[Witchhunter]

11:33 AM on 03/27/2010

No one is "entitled" to an abortion. The two loopers need to give themselves a rest from the rest of the world.

[gayleg]

11:43 AM on 03/27/2010

Actually women are entitled to abortions. By law.

[UpFromLiberalism]

11:06 AM on 03/27/2010

charlie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdtFWCrCh0s&feature=fvst

[UpFromLiberalism]

11:01 AM on 03/27/2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAzA9xuB-0

[posssume]

10:54 AM on 03/27/2010

why dont we just get rid of gov and let the states take care of there own afairs, the way it should be, wouldnt you like to see your tax dollars go to your state , and not gov to spend how they think it best for us,?

[UpFromLiberalism]

10:58 AM on 03/27/2010

10th amendment

the way it should be

and used to be

[Littlewords]

11:36 AM on 03/27/2010

The 10th affords for cooperative federalism with states for significant national endeavors. Also, just how who the nation field a military force, set up trade agreements, establish treaties?

You need to step out of the 17th century and the colonies. Even our forefathers saw the evolution and benefit from a nation comprised of states, rather than individual nation states we would see if a less than informed person took the 10th to inappropriate and excessive ill advised extremes.

[iowamiddleguy]

11:01 AM on 03/27/2010

because the less populated states would become poorer than they already are and that is notthe aim of the constitution - it is to provide for the safety and welfare of all.....

[UpFromLiberalism]

11:02 AM on 03/27/2010

yeah

never mind about that Constitution thingy

[rad21]

10:51 AM on 03/27/2010

Healthcare is being used to solve a major social problem created by we-the-people. End-of-life-care (last few months in hospital/nursing home) consumes 30% of healthcare costs and bankrupting Medicare and the country.

If concerned about this bankruptcy, Schools and Universities should impart a different education. For now, we should ask boomers to care of their parents, uncles and aunts at the end-of-life, with or without Hospice.

Surveys show 90% of seniors desire to die in the security and comfort of their own home, on their own terms and surrounded by family, relatives and friends. Yet only 20% do. Rest die in the hospital / nursing home. Here their "personal space" is limited to a shared room. All they call their own is their bed, a used hospital gown and their toothbrush. If lucky, a solitary member of the family may stop-by for a visit.

In today's world with retired or (unfortunately) laid-off boomers or adult children, this end-of life care of first-degree relatives should be unacceptable. Its time that laws make adult children responsible for their parents (instead of being taxed); just as parents are legally responsible for their children. Courts can decide the financial responsibility.

Loneliness at end-of-life has major economic costs to society. Hospital / nursing home care in the last few months of life consumes third of the healthcare budget. This aspect of healthcare / social-care Bloggers, Progressives and Conservatives would rather not talk about.

[whitemale08]

11:03 AM on 03/27/2010

It should not cost so much to treat anybody in the last few moments of a person's life.

If you bring the price down through competiton and expand the supply of that treatement then costs of that treatment will go down.

Your argument is the trick that monopolists use to dupe people into allowing only cartels control supply by restricting the expansion of that supply.

The term 'end-of-life' is silly and should not be used in a 'free society' who looks to science/technology to help all peoples live as long as possible.

[Mickey One]

11:11 AM on 03/28/2010

rad21, you are right about the importance of dealing the enormous costs of 'end of life care.' However, when you are in the 'end of life care' process, you don't think of it as 'end of life' because you hold onto what slivers of hope and recovery that are continually offered by your medical professionals.

My father died last year after many months in the hospital. Although he would be counted among the 20% who die at home surrounded by family, because that is where he spent his last days.

After my father's death, we received a copy of the bill from the hospital. His care, which was covered by Medicare and he had supplemental insurance after Medicare coverage ran out, averaged over $5000. What shocked us were items on the list. $75 for an aspirin. Every doctor who made their rounds and looked at him for 5 minutes, $100/visit. The hospital bill ran into the many hundreds of thousands of dollars and was 75 pages. The Supplemental insurance hadn't even kicked in yet, so the private insurer paid nothing.

From our perspective, although we were pleased with the care he received, the pay-for-service charges for Medicare are grossly exploited by the hospital.

[den1953]

09:53 AM on 03/27/2010

I thought the whole purpose of congress and the senate was to improve the bills once there law, oh wait that's right if your a Republican you do nothing even when your in the majority.

[billhodges]

09:44 AM on 03/27/2010

This Health Care bill will do nothing more than destroy the economy with massive costs over what they claim the coast will be. It will impact or credit rating as a country which will drive up interest rates.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c51fbbce-3908-11df-8970-00144feabdc0.html

There is no free lunch and those that think this bill is wonderful will eventually see that. Even Cuba is claiming they are having difficulty with cost of health care being out of control, and that country can not even manage their toilet paper needs much less provide quality health care.

We are about to see the ruin of our economy by trying to redistribute the wealth of the country. Why should people not willing to work hard or improve their lives be given money or services when they do not deserve them?

[darr]

09:59 AM on 03/27/2010

"We are about to see the ruin of our economy by trying to redistribute the wealth of the country"
Actually, that already happened only the roles were switched around. That's what I do not get about this particular argument. Thirty years ago Reagan started the ball rollng with the giant tax cuts for the top 2 percent of this country, with the logic that the extra wealth would "tricle down". With this stategy wealth was distributed unfairly. Before the tax cuts the rich were still rich and the middle class and worker bees were making decent wages while working hard and could afford homes of their own and some even sent their kids to college. The upper 2 percent after recieving the tax cuts decided that they did not want to distribute a portion of their newly gotten tax break monies to their workers. The result was a slow but constant slide for the middle and working classes in this country when no "trickle down" happened. Please tell me why these people, the top 2 percent special consideration when the rest of us don't?

[UpFromLiberalism]

10:02 AM on 03/27/2010

In the Democrats political reality, those who become successful are to be reviled and punished with oppressive and confiscatory taxation. Worse, they are to be considered the enemy of working men and women who are portrayed as conspiring to ruin the lives of average Americans.

It never occurs to the class warfare specialists that rich people got that way generally because they work hard and take enormous risks. And as I often remind them, I’ve never been hired by a poor person.

These class envy Democrats are farther away than ever from the words of President Lincoln who said, “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

[MakemegoHmm]

10:04 AM on 03/27/2010

So your tell us that if everybody has some money ...the country will be worse off???? Please explain how that would be???

Right now....the richest 1% have 80% of the money....and the rest are pillaging to stay afloat.

If the economic wheel is to keep turning EVERYONE MUST HELP WITH THE TURNING...NOT JUST THE POOR WHILE THE RICK WATCH....NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.....LOOK AROUND YOU....DON'T TELL ME THE COUNTRY IS BETTER OFF NOW THEN IT WAS FROM 1949 TO 1970 .....THE GREATEST GROWTH IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!!

[UpFromLiberalism]

10:09 AM on 03/27/2010

wacky wacky lefties

liberal definition

rich: anyone who has a dollar more than them

[Istherereallyhope]

09:03 AM on 03/27/2010

Obama says we will all have FREE preventive care. How can that be??? Will he force doctors to work for FREE?? Will he force insurance companies to provide this for FREE?
What a pipe dream

[whitegayrepublican]

09:18 AM on 03/27/2010

Will we as "entitled" Americans ever be grateful for anything? This bill is something to build on for 32M people. That's 31,999,999 more people than you. Hmmmm

[UpFromLiberalism]

09:30 AM on 03/27/2010

at $1000000000000

[dps2]

09:35 AM on 03/27/2010

"entitled?" what is so "entitled" about expecting our tax money to be used to benefit US for a change rather than fund the wars and bailouts for the rich?

[Ted LPD]

09:20 AM on 03/27/2010

Most private insurances already offer this to the insured. If your employer is not taking advantage, please ask them to change providers. Harvard Pilgrim offers discount for Bewell programs. They encourage walk programs to staff.

They offer reduced gym prices and encourage staff to take an hour to the gym during work time. These are free and will be extended to those in exchange. How many people go for annual check-ups. Insured folks do. Exchange folks will.

[cdottielee]

09:30 AM on 03/27/2010

As a small business owner, I have had private insurance without the pool advantage of a large employer. I have not had preventive care option available to me nor the opportunity to chose among programs. While this is not a perfect bill and it will need work along the way, being part of an exchange is one of the greatest benefits of the reform to the small business community.

Ted, thanks for your insightful posts - fanned.

[Ted LPD]

08:51 AM on 03/27/2010

It appears most conservatives continue to rely on classical economic theory when evaluating a law as this reform. A law that has not kicked in appears to be shear anger and insensitivity! I believe the MBAs out there who use modern theories strongly disagree with the interpretations of intended and unintended consequences. Every Republican is an economist -The know it all! Unfortunately their narratives about outcomes are based on false perception, lies and the sixties economic theories.

This reform is law. I don't believe we can provide any meaningful analysis here except scare folks. This is pathetic!

[Istherereallyhope]

09:00 AM on 03/27/2010

Reality will set in real soon for you. Have patience

[Ted LPD]

09:24 AM on 03/27/2010

Can't wait

[UpFromLiberalism]

10:01 AM on 03/27/2010

the skinny socialist in the WH, liberals and huffies have changed the law of supply, demand and economics as a whole

hosanna obama

[Istherereallyhope]

08:22 AM on 03/27/2010

When all of the unintended consequences of this bill are presented to the left, their response is SO WHAT.
Reality will smack them right in the head when November rolls around. Midterm elections normally have a low turn out. I assure you that the Seniors and Independence will show up. More than 60% of the folks in both of these segments of society oppose this crappy bill

[Ted LPD]

08:33 AM on 03/27/2010

There are always intended and unintended outcomes for a policy. Policymaking is an ongoing process. Unintended consequences will be fixed over time. If you claim you know them now when the law has not kicked in, you are not telling the truth.

If you are looking at this law using Friedman economic theory as your guide, you have not read the theory well.

[Istherereallyhope]

08:39 AM on 03/27/2010

We are already aware of some of these consequences. Like the new tax on medical device and supply companies. Not only will the cost of health care increase because of this tax, it will also cost jobs.
Or maybe that was an intended consequence. Either way it is not good for health care or the economy.

[UpFromLiberalism]

09:27 AM on 03/27/2010

OMB didn't include human behavior modeling in the budget

who says it'll work

[bradley7777]

08:37 AM on 03/27/2010

MANY on the left strongly dislike this bill overall and we are fully aware of the "unintended" consequences.

Just because you don't hear us on the corporate TV news (apparently we're not allowed) does not mean that there is not a sizable portion of liberals who are upset that this legislation has further empowered and entrenched the health insurance companies in our way of life. In addition, the mandates and the subsidies to these same vile companies are heinous, REPUBLICAN ideas that began in the mid '90's.

Don't be fooled by the actors in Washington.

If the Republicans had the majority in both houses and a Repub President, the mandates and subsidies would still be law and the Democrats would be "against" the legislation.

Bank on it. It's smoke and mirrors and how the political operatives act and behave is ALWAYS in the overall interests of corporate interests. They will also act and behave in a way that strives to keep the masses divided and maximizes hatred among the masses. Looking around I'd say they've done a hell of a job!

[Istherereallyhope]

08:42 AM on 03/27/2010

Fanned, I couldnt have said it more eloquently..

[ScaryBob]

09:36 AM on 03/27/2010

Ummmm... I must have missed the big push for HCR when the Shrub was prez and he had majorities in both houses of Congress for six years...

[Ted LPD]

08:13 AM on 03/27/2010

Private insurances will still cover abortion with or without the present healthcare law. The law simply says that, for those participating in exchange, Federal money cannot be used to cover abortion except in case of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk. Folks with subsidized care have often paid cash for abortion, breast implants, nose job and other cosmetic surgery. Even in exchange, you can still pay for abortion and these things provided you are billed separately for the procedures. Insurance covers abortion for one simple reason – saving money. A family of three is covered under the same plan as a family of four. By adding a 4th member to a family of 3, insurance will extend coverage to the 4th child. If insurance gets rid of the 4th baby, they save money in the long run. This might not sound ethical but its … all about free market.

If Government is providing subsidies for Exchange Program, it is but normal to adopt the previous law. The tension during this reform was to make sure the previous law on abortion remained in effect. This was not an abortion bill?

Some lefties are hysterical ... about drop of coverage because Federal law doesn't cover abortion. This is an argument that should have been made before this reform. It was never made and the law on abortion remained in place. If these folks want abortion covered, they should present a separate bill not linked to the current healthcare

[darr]

10:15 AM on 03/27/2010

Look, I know abortion is a very sticky and passionate topic. I am a lifelong liberal democrat. Roe V Wade is law and has been for over three decades. That's a fact. Because of the Hyde ammendment, no federal funding for abortions has been the law of the land. Believe it or not, this is one liberal that thinks the Hyde amendment is appropriate. That language is in this bill, the language of the Hyde amendement. My question to you is why complain about back doors on subsidies that could fund abortion ...now. Why weren't you and others trying to fix that during Bush's terms? You said yourelf that that has been going on for awhile.
I would like to see some links and or verified research that proves your statement that subsidies have often paid for abortions, breast implants, etc.

[gayleg]

11:49 AM on 03/27/2010

Why wouldn't an insurance company "opt in" to the exchanges. They'll get paid through the government for all those 38 million on subsidies.

O'Neil is right. All abortion coverage will be wiped out unless we do something about it. Of course, Viagra will still be covered!

[UpFromLiberalism]

07:26 AM on 03/27/2010

Say good bye to your, your parents and your children's raises.

Say good bye to new job opportunities.

Say good bye to you dividends, stock price, retirement income…

3M sees 1Q charge of $85M-$90M for health reform

AT&T Inc. said Friday it would take a $1 billion in the first quarter for health reform

U.S. Healthcare Law To Result In AK Steel Recording $31 Million Non-Cash Charge In First Quarter of 2010

Caterpillar said health reform would raise its health care costs by more than $100 million, in the first year after the health-care overhaul program.

Valero Energy expected to take a first-quarter charge of $20 million due to the tax impact of a new healthcare law.

Deere Says New Health Care Reform Law Will Increase 2010 Expense By $150 Million After-Tax

[gfs5541]

07:45 AM on 03/27/2010

Who cares? All the big corporations are being hit, but HCR was supposed to help small businesses, not these behemoths.

[Istherereallyhope]

08:01 AM on 03/27/2010

The help small business get will be minimal. Some will opt out and stop providing health insurance. Plus many of these small business make their living off of supplying these larger corporations. All business will be hurt by this and will cost us jobs. WAKE UP

[H200se7en]

08:34 AM on 03/27/2010

Who cares? Do you like jobs?! Last time I checked increases in taxes DO NOT HELP COMPANIES HIRE PEOPLE!

ATT employs 250,000 people the world over .... Now they have to decide between continuing to offer health coverage or fire workers. GREAT PLAN!

If they do not offer health coverage then their employees are forced onto the government's exchanges .... oh, btw, which DON"T EXIST YET. And when they do -- which is going to take years of bureaucrats fighting over who gets control -- there is no guarantee they will be affordable. SUBSIDIES do not equate with affordability, generally it is the opposite - subsidies are required because plans are NOT AFFORDABLE.

Not to mention cost! I know that is a hard concept to grasp onto -- the one that AMERICA IS BROKE -- but here, have a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

[TSOCANUCK]

07:46 AM on 03/27/2010

ah the cost per car for automobile manufa. in canada is cheaper than the U.S. due to lower health care costs to the employer dah

[Istherereallyhope]

08:02 AM on 03/27/2010

Get over it, this bill is nothing like what Canada does with health care. You will not see that kind of health care in the US in your lifetime