Bush Administration Still Can't Get Health Care Policy Right

Throughout its tenure, the Bush Administration has subverted the democratic process and undermined access to health care for millions of Americans. We have seen this several times over the last eight years. Many of you know the highlights -- President Bush's veto of my legislation expanding stem cell research and of the Children's Health Care Insurance Program, both of which were passed by the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support; the seven proposed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) rules limiting Medicaid patients access to health care; and now, the Administration's latest attempt to restrict access to birth control with yet another proposed regulation.

The proposed Health and Human Service Department (HHS) rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employers from discriminating based on employees' or applicants' religious beliefs or practices. The Administration's own Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent HHS comments in September calling the proposed rule "unnecessary for protection of employees and applicants," "potentially confusing" to the health care community, and "a burden on covered employers, particularly small employers." The proposed rule is a transparent attempt by the Administration to restrict access to health care, especially reproductive health care.

I am proud to have partnered with Senators Clinton and Murray, and Congresswoman Slaughter, to send a strong message to the Bush Administration that this is the wrong direction for health care policy in America. Our legislation, introduced in both the Senate and House Thursday, would keep HHS from moving forward with this dangerous rule. The Bush Administration's 11th hour attempt to restrict access to reproductive health care is not only abusive, but also threatens everyone's access to other vital health care services. The Bush Administration continues to pursue its extreme ideology over sound public health care policies even as it enters its final days.

As the co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I am committed to fighting the Bush Administration's attempts to restrict health care until its final day. Our country needs common-sense approaches to health care policy based on science and the public good, not just political ideology. I look forward to a new direction in health care policy in the 111th Congress and under the Obama Administration.

DeGette is the Vice Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over health care policy, and co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.

Comments

[ResidentChimpinExile]

I'm sure the "ONE" will solve all your problems. You waited eight years, a few more months won't make any different.

[torrrep]

You don't have the first clue about "healthcare policy". First of all healthcare is available to any American who chooses to pay for it. If you can't or are unwilling to pay for it then it sounds like maybe your priorities are wrong. It is not my job as a tax payer to pay for the health care of someone else's children. If you can't afford to take care of your kids or to properly insure them then you have no business having kids in the first place. Secondly, Bush only prohibited federal tax dollars from being spent on embryonic stem cell research. It has not been outlawed and you are more than welcome to help pay for it by opening up your own check book. In ten years of stem cell research not one single cure or treatment has been developed from stem cell research. There hasn't even been one single FDA approved trial. No one is restricting access to health care. Just because you want abortion on demand readily available and you can't get it doesn't mean that anyone is being denied health care. Once again Democrats like yourself expect tax payers to pay for those who make stupid decisions in their lives. You don't have the first clue as what the term "personal responsibility" even means.

[Beachchick]

The Bush White House has engaged in an unprecedented war on science. The current administration suppressed and manipulated scientific information and stacked advisory panels with religious activists and industry representatives to further a political agenda.

Therefore, it is not surprising that we have seen very little scientific breakthroughs under the Bush administration. The U.S. always valued and funded research, especially in the academic community. Cutting edge research attracts the best minds from around the world to teach and study at our universities or work in our public institutions. Today, students and professors are increasingly choosing to study and teach at universities in Europe and Asia. Along with our capital markets, we are losing in every other critical area that made us a strong, competitive, and advanced nation.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the first trachea transplant using the patient’s stem cells was a success.

http://www.webmd.com/news/20081119/1st-trachea-transplant-from-stem-cells?src=RSS_PUBLIC

[torrrep]

If you bothered reading what I wrote then you would understand that I don't have a problem with adult stem cell research. That patient you talked about used his own stem cells and that is fine with me. I don't agree with embryonic stem cell research and I don't agree with tax dollars being used to pay for it. But I don't have a problem with funding by private donations.

[lynjs]

I think the reason that you're taking this position is that you've never been without. There are so many of us out there who did the right things and still are treated like second class citizens because we have no money.

I am 42, college educated and unemployed for 12 years because I have bad hands. I don't get assistance of any kind from any entity. I don't have kids nor do I drink, smoke or do drugs. If it weren't for my mother and brother, I'd be in street. My family just can't afford my insurance at $300 per month. That is half of our house payment.

I didn't make my hands go bad on purpose to lose my job where I couldn't and still can't get another one. I did the work of three people as a typist/writer at a newspaper working part-time for the then salary $4.25 per hour. I pleaded for help, but it never came. In the end, it left me messed up both in hands and opportunity.

So before you judge those who are uninsured or don't have their kids insured, do some research, talk to people, REAL PEOPLE who work or look for work everyday. Maybe you'll understand then that people don't choose not to have health care, the prices do. I just hope you don't lose everything in this bad economy and then wind up ill. Not a good thing being broke and ill at the same time.

[mcostello]

My guess is, torrep, that you don't pay for your healthcare either. You may have insurance coverage, but that usually only stays around while you are healthy, or work for a large company. Anyone who has had a significant health issue in the last 2-3 years knows that even with insurance coverage, your out-of-pocket will be a large chunk of cash, and the insurance co. will try any maneuver to not pay your bill, and then try to discontinue your care.
If you are truly paying for "healthcare", then bully for you for making tons of cash.

[TerrapinCB]

It's sad, all the to do about abortions; then don't help or give an medical aid to those newly born. Of course this is the "christi@n" position. But once those children that were "saved" from an abortion are 18, get them out fighting! What a hypocritical position of these people. Such a fight to help some live, then a rush to kill others.

[kimleehan]

Health care in the U.S. is as close to a priviledge as you can get. Have you ever sat in a city hospital waiting room for 15 hours waiting to be called and than told that the lump in your groan is probibly a cancer. And forget about earlly diagnosis, it took them over a year of testing to diagnose it as swollen lump nods and than another year for it (hernia) to strangulate and almost kill me. That could'nt have happened in a country that has national health care.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"The Bush Administration continues to pursue its extreme ideology over sound public health care policies even as it enters its final days."

The ideologues do seem to have a rather NON-right-­to-lifelik­e attitude, IMHO.

[Lionsden]

Isn't Federal involvement in the medical system more likely the "subversion" of the democratic process?

And isn't it true that there is no ban on embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in America? Is the "general" welfare of the public in such mortal danger that the Feds must step in?

Hasn't this Republic grown and prospered, advanced in population, and longevity WITHOUT any Federal input in ESC research or discoveries?

When might the General Welfare clause of the United States might apply to the medical field? It would apply, for example, in the case of a small pox epidemic where tens of millions Americans could die without the force of government to assist in dispensing medicine and reducing the threat. At that point the "defense" of the nation (General Welfare and Defense) would be at risk and the Federal government is REQUIRED to step in.

If we lived another 50 years without ESC research, it is likely that it would not harm the general population as a whole or threaten the defense of the nation.

The "democratic" process isn't just when the people get what they wish for by goading their leaders to vote for it. We have the general welfare clause, and the enumerated and implied powers which limit Federal power.

And we will survive as a whole without the feds funding ESC and taking over medical care (like we always have).

[LorettaSingbiel]

"If we lived another 50 years without ESC research, it is likely that it would not harm the general population as a whole or threaten the defense of the nation."

And there it is...that ever present "me, myself, and I" REPUBLICAN attitude.

The "general public" suffering and dying from debilitating and deadly diseases might feel differently.

[torrrep]

Maybe you should try doing a little research before making ignorant comments. In ten years of ESC not one single cure or treatment has been developed. Not one FDA approved trial has even begun. So how many years and how many millions of tax payer dollars should be used to pay for research that already demonstrates no progress? ESC can take place with private funding. If you want to open up your checkbook and donate then feel free. As for me I think it should be scrapped.

[Lionsden]

LorettaSingbiel

The "'general public' suffering and dying from debilitating and deadly diseases" is something so new that it skipped the founding generation's attention? And today's health problems are so severe (more than back then) that they rise to the level of general welfare and defense, and require extreme government intervention?

So people before the 20th century had good, long lives without suffering, and adequate affordable healthcare such as they didn't need or demand full-scale action by the federal government?

I'm not sure why you brought up "me, myself, and I" except in an attempt to imply that I am less concerned about others than you are. And since you don't know me, that is an impossible thing for you to assume.

Since you wish to examine attitudes, I would like to join in. Perhaps you attempt to attain a sort of redemption when you remind others how superior you are because you don't think about "me, myself, and I". But, I that find such an attitude tends to come from the same well-spring in the soul that narcissism flows from, and with similar unfortunate consequences.

If you could defend against the substance of my charge that it is un-Constitutional for the federal government to take over the medical system or justify ESC research, then perhaps you wouldn't have to lob an ad hominem at me?

I am not a republican. You do realize that MY position is the Libertarian Party's? ( I am not a Libertarian either).

[LeLoup]

"And we will survive as a whole without the feds funding ESC and taking over medical care (like we always have)."

Yeah right!
Like the NIH has never done anything for the drug discovery process huh? Or the essential basic research that pharma companies were very eager to see and develop profit makers with, isn't it?

Ignore the facts, ignore history and one can make claims like the one quoted above.

[Lionsden]

Speaking of ignoring things, please note that I discussed an example (small pox) where the Feds have the DUTY to be involved in health care. The context presumes there are other examples.

If, as the democrats claim, they care so much about this research, it seems likely that they would be throwing their vast wealth into the wildly successful adult stem cell research rather than the failed ESC research.

The more "invent-a-monster” scenarios dems invent to soak the public forever, the more it makes them happy. The world isn't perfect and we will suffer all the more for it. There is never ending poverty, so let's make a war on that and soak the public for it. There is never ending suffering so let's make a war on that and soak the public for it, and so forth.

I'm not unaware of how democrats conflate the common problems of humanity into Quixotic quests people other than democrats to solve. But I was just witness to George Bush who, in like manner, created his own monster for which we are to slave perpetually: the phony war on terror.

Perhaps I just slept at the Holiday Inn.

[likeicare]

Uhhhhhh, Rep. DeG. --

Restricting healthcare access is the whole point.

The more rationed healthcare is, the more expensive it is. The more expensive it is, the bigger the profit.

And that's the bottom line, isn't it? Profits. Not healthcare. It's aaaaalllll about the money.

And everyone said univeral government administered healthcare would be soooooooo expensive!!!! See how much worse private enterprise can make something, when they put thier minds to it???!!!

[mandycat]

It's really a win-win for the GOP base. The Religious Right gets to beat up on women one more time (oh, excuse me: "Encourage a Return to Traditional Values") and the healthcare industry continues to rake in the loot.

[RobinSeattle]

Hi Diana:

I would like you and the other HuffPo fans to take the following test on American civics. Elected officials who took it recently only scored a composite 44% even though those questions are easy.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/21/22112/274/178/664934

I got a 93.9% by the way.

But what it tells you is that our elected officials, most of whom graduated from one college or another, often have no idea about how our government runs or its history. And thus is the difficulty of getting coherent policy out of office holders.

[RobFy]

I pay a tax of 1.5% to the Govt of Australia called the Medicare levy. When, as has happened in the past, my children come down with something that I am not sure is a run of the mill sickness, I can take them to the best children's hospital in Australia - the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne.
They are assessed in the emergency department - triage - and then seen by the best paediatricians in Australia. You may have to wait but no one is turned away. We do not have to pay anything for this service as our 1.5% is our health insurance "premium".
The previous conservative govt of J Howard - Liperal party Australia - pushed private health insurance despite the fact that admin charges per health dollar are cheaper in the public system than in the private system. I.e. more money is left per dollar spent in the public system to actually treat patients than in the private health system.
Is there any reason that the US could not have a similar sytem? That way, people who wanted to pay extra to have private health insurance - the ones who may want to choose their Doctor or have a private room in hospital - pay for it, and everyone else is covered by the 1.5% Medicare levy?
(BTW any serious health emergencies are generally transferred to the Public system here, as they have the best Medical staff.)

[AngelaQuattrano]

The issues are very complex. For me to get individual health insurance would cost me 20% of my income, and it would likely cover half of my expenses or less. I can't possibly afford that right now, so I am uninsured.

http://www.pnhp.org/

There are two reasons we don't have any kind of national health care policy. First, the insurance companies have a powerful lobby to make sure they continue to profiteer and drain 30% of our health care dollars in administration costs; and the fact that the majority of Americans would not agree that health care should be a universal right. (Face it, the majority of Americans have a long list of people who shouldn't be getting it.)

Too many people think that their insurance coverage will protect them if they get seriously ill, while it will not. At the same time, we are willing to pay unlimited $$$$$$$$$ to make sure that not a single person who does not deserve health care gets it.

[Beachchick]

Actually, the vast majority of Americans want universal healthcare and believe healthcare is a fundamental right.

The Right Wing talking heads on hate radio and Fox News want you to believe there is little public support for universal healthcare. They are skilled at championing a minority opinion to shape the perception that it is the majority opinion. Conservative pundits desperately want to convince the public that we are a center right country despite public support for policies that suggest otherwise. They need to protect corporate interests and an economic system that protects their massive paychecks.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/01/68_percent_of_americans_favor.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

Thank you Rep.DeGette for working to protect the public's interest and promote sane policies that are grounded in facts and supported by research not based on a dogmatic belief in a failed economic or political ideology.

[RobinSeattle]

Japan's system is very similar to that and works exceedingly well.

[Lemastre]

In the U.S., when you discuss single-payer, universal health care with Republicans and other "conservatives," they assert three points immediately -- 1) the English and Canadians don't like it, 2) if the government runs it, it will be mismanaged, and 3) it's "socialism." Guaranteed coverage for everybody at the cost of less money and hassle is of no importance to these people.

[LeLoup]

The Canadians don't like it?
Then why are they eager to keep the system as it is?
How many Canadians want to switch to an American-like system?

Not many, I can tell you that.

[laylahb]

So, how long did it take for Leavitt at HHS to read the hundreds of thousands of emails we sent to him? Five minutes? What is the point of the "comment period" if nobody reads any of the comments? Does Mr. Leavitt only have time to read from his Book of Mormon to determine the fate of millions of women? Church or State..

Just another parting gift from the W administration.. They can't get out fast enough..

[CactusTom]

The Bush administration is spot on with their health care program. It just that you have to be part of the health insurance or pharmaceutical industry to appreciate it.

[niblik]

Thank you so much for your efforts on this.
Frankly, I think its a crime for people to go into the medical field and then refuse to help patients based on a personal religious belief. We depend on our doctors to be there for us, we shouldn't have to fight them to have the freedom of making our own choices.
This should also apply to pharmacists. Who are they to judge what is right or wrong about requesting birth control medicines?
Sorry, this is a sore subject for me. But once again, thank you for pushing back on Pres Bush's last minute attempts to place restrictions on our health care.

[AngelaQuattrano]

So they can't discriminate against Christian Science nurses who believe only in prayer, right?

[Mildmannered]

Diana, and so what has the Bush administration gotten right in eight years?

[lisakaz2]

If the answer "not much" isn't obvious to you, you must be one of them talibangelicals.

[VagabondSaint]

Highlights of the Bush Administration:

1. The Earth did not crash into the sun.
2. We were not invaded by aliens from the planet Zoobari.
3. Dick Cheney only directly injured one person, keeping his clammy, zombie-like hands relatively blood-free for the first time in, well, ever.
4. America remained firmly attached to the planet Earth.
5. Obama won the presidential election, becoming America's first bi-racial president while also sending Bush back to Texas and forcing Dick Cheney to relocate his hunting blind from the GOP breakroom in the Capitol to a Kentucky nursing home
6. Not everybody died

Just to answer the question of what Bush got right. . .

As for this issue, I've been following this story since the early part of the year, and no matter how many times this crap gets voted down and people rage against it, the Mis-under-estimated Administration keeps bringing it back, again and again. . .I am glad to see that people like DeGette will be there, again and again, to fight against these backdoor attempts to impose a narrow-minded set of religious beliefs on an entire country. No God that I know of ever said it was okay to force people to act the way you think they should. . .maybe the pages of the Bible that mentioned Jesus' devotion to tolerance and respect for even those who disagree with you fell out of the Bible when it was being thumped against a pulpit.

http://vagabondsaint.wordpress.com

[jmw2006]

amen to that