The Obama presidency began with inspirational talk about transformational leadership and solving the country's most challenging problems through a bipartisanship approach that would eliminate Washington bickering. Health care reform, a cap-and-trade energy bill, financial regulation and an economic stimulus bill were among the centerpieces of the domestic agenda.
What happened to health care reform?
Today's Democratic dilemma with health care reform transcends partisanship: we really need to constrain health care spending lest we bankrupt the country. Expanding coverage without curbing costs and changing the incentive structure of our inflationary, fee-for-service model is a recipe for fiscal irresponsibility that we cannot afford. The Massachusetts senatorial election makes it evident that the electorate has come to this conclusion. The Democrats need a way out of this mess; so does the country.
When President Obama arrived at the White House, a bipartisan approach to health care already existed. Liberal Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and conservative Utah Republican Bob Bennett co-sponsored the Senate's "Healthy Americans Act." It was already drafted, had been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as actually reducing the deficit, and had garnered 18 co-sponsors: 8 Democrats, 9 Republicans, and one Independent. Their approach provided near universal coverage, and it also reformed the existing fee-for-service structure in ways that included economic incentives for serious cost reductions.
Wyden-Bennett also received endorsements from commentators as diverse as David Broder, David Brooks, Lanny Davis, and Matt Miller.
Instead of turning immediately to Senators Wyden and Bennett, the new President essentially delegated health care reform to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. The results were highly partisan bills in the House and Senate that only passed by the narrowest of margins. Wyden-Bennett wasn't even an afterthought, and some Democrats thought Wyden was just meddling.
What Congress has now produced is not change to believe in but more status quo. There have been endless turf battles, backroom deals with big pharmaceutical companies and big labor, the appearance of Senatorial votes being bought (Nelson and Landrieu), illusory and unlikely-to-be-realized cost savings, less than universal coverage, health exchanges that are too small or too constrained to be successful, and no real structural reform that would change the unsustainable economic incentives of the current system.
The House bill that passed in November by five votes is significantly different from the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve. After Scott Brown's upset in Massachusetts, it is inconceivable that House members could now vote to accept the Senate bill unamended.
If Obama is serious about health care reform, transformational change, presidential leadership, and his own political future, his only solution now is to go back and include the bipartisan themes from the Wyden-Bennett "Healthy Americans Act." One of these themes is to offer every American a choice of competing plans, just like Members of Congress have. This is the best solution to build a viable health-care marketplace for the American workforce. Our workforce desires - and deserves - portability, transparency and choice of quality health plans at a price that is affordable and accountable. If Obama did this, I would be one Republican who would publicly support national health-care reform legislation.
Charles Kolb, who served in the first Bush White House, is president of the Committee for Economic Development, a business-led think tank. The views in this article are the author's and not those of CED.
Dr. Elaine Schattner: Getting The Right Medicine
What's missing is a solid discussion of the type and extent of treatments people would want if they were sufficiently informed of their medical options and circumstances.
We are really upset at deals with drug companies.
Americans pay 3 to 5 times as much for drugs as people in other countries.
We pay ALL the R&D cost for the world. That's why people here want to get drugs from Canada. They’re the same drugs made by American drug companies sold to Canada (and everywhere else but in America) at 60 to 80 percent off!
This is one of the biggest reasons that health care costs so much more in America!
Simple pass a law that says American drug companies can not sell drugs in other countries for less than in America.
Every other countries cost would go up a little and our costs would go down a lot if the R&D costs were spread evenly.
Even the GOP would HAVE to support this. Their base would kill them if they did not.
After all, the Republicans DID win by a landslide in the last two elections. Why shouldn't they be allowed to dictate their terms and insist on getting their way with health care?
"Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale said earlier this week that Mr. Williams, 60, will undergo surgery this week in the U.S. and is expected to be off the job for between three and 12 weeks."
For those of you who do not know, Mr Williams is the Canadian Premier.
I take it that your argument is that Mr. Williams having his surgery in the United States is evidence that the American medical system is better for rich people than the Canadian medical system.
By your logic, Argentinian women must be superior to American women because of Mark Sanford's choices.
However,"your logic" does not make a bit of sense. The point is people from all other countries come to America far often than do Americans go to other countries for medical procedures. I do not think that even a "rich" person would do this if there were not a need.
By the way, not all people who come here for medical procedures are rich. My son has had 15 surgeries over the years. We constantly are meeting families from other countries who have told us the doctors and hospitals have agreed to provide their medical needs for free.
There are two reasons for this:
1) The Republicans are the servants of big insurance companies and the investors that make money off the current "health care" system.
2) The Republicans know that if true health care reform passed, it would prove to be very popular over time, and would ultimately help the Democrats.
The Republicans don't want either of these things to happen. That's why all of their BS about "bipartisanship" is just a way of stalling, and killing health care reform. They're hoping to "run out the clock" until the next election, just as they've done in the past.
So, don't believe the Republicans when they say they want to work with the Democrats. They don't.
Any questions?
Give a little demonstration of good faith. Prove it by pressuring, and succeeding in getting Shelby to take off his blanket hold on appointees. Then get all the appointees in place by April.
The fact of the matter is that the democrats could not agree and many had to have special deals made in order to vote for the bill. So, blame must be placed on the democrats for not passing this bill. Personally, I wouldn't call any healthcare bill that would imprison someone for up to 5 years because they failed to purchase health insurance a "good" bill. I think that's just unamerican. Its a shame when a family has to choose between health insurance, and putting food on the table for the family to eat, all because its the law.
"Government doesn't create real jobs?" Tell that to the policemen, soldiers, sailors, teachers, nurses, doctors, librarians, construction workers, water experts, safety professionals, transportation experts and many, many others. Tell these people they don't have "real jobs", buddy, and see what response you get.
Some people are so ideologically fixated that they can't think straight. Then again, if your primary source of information is Fox "News" or right-wing websites, you're going to be pretty obtuse.
Isn't that right, "shapland"?
After behaving this way so consistently, how can you possibly claim that trying to be MORE inclusive of Republicans is going to be productive in any way?
Pretty soon we'll be hearing that using proper English is "an elitist liberal politically correct conspiracy"...
The Republican strategy is to maintain the status quo and defeat any Democratic proposals regardless of their merit.
Jim DeMint
Waterloo
Thanks for playing.
In all honesty, it went after everyone. Insurers, hospital, employers, unions, state/local governments, etc.
If Obama had used Wyden-Bennett as his template for healthcare, it would've died quicker than you could read a "Tale of Two Cities".
It would've failed because no interest group would've benefited from it, so they all would've fought to kill it. Big Pharma, Chamber of Commerce, and Big Labor, all united to kill Wyden-Bennett. It would've been a pretty ugly sight to see.
Besides the fact, if Big Labor didn't have the House of Represenatives by the balls, the health bill would've been signed already.
Yes, but, it is the one bipartisan proposal that might have a chance of being passed and save us from the cost of doing nothing.
Your statement about how it would have failed will only be true as long as the American public remains so apathetic about stating their views. Have you called your representative and urged them to ensure that this bill gets its hearing? I have.
Stop blogging so much and pick up your phone!
IF the President and Dem leadership would take up this bill..it WOULD be a federal takeover of health insurance!!
The republican sponsers and co-sponsers would run away so fast, they'd all break their hips ( becasue of their advanced ages).
Maybe the bill has/had some good ideas, but it's basically a single-payer(federal government) to private insurance companies, who then have to folow rules set by the single-payer as to payments and benefits.