On Health Care, Dems Learn to Speak Softly, Carry Big Stick
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Ferdous Al-Faruque report: Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., discussed health care reform at the Center for American Progress on March 27, in Washington, D.C.
Ferdous Al-Faruque/ ABC News Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mt., the powerful chairman of the Finance Committee who is taking the lead on reforming the nation’s health-care system, told the liberal Center for American Progress on Friday that circumventing Republicans on this issue "would not be a good idea". He — and several other Democrats — are not, however, ruling out the possibility of bypassing GOP senators through the budget reconciliation process if a deal is not reached by the end of the summer. Reconciliation allows legislation to pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. The threat of the budget reconciliation process is an important "club" for Democrats to wield, said Norm Ornstein, an expert on Congress from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. It gives the party in power leverage over Republicans and the insurance industry that they otherwise would not have. "We are not at a point yet where the Republican Party wants to be a partner in making major legislation and that’s where reconciliation issue comes back," said Ornstein. "Whether the administration can artfully use a club over people’s heads, not to use it, but to say . . . to Republicans: ‘we have got an option here and we can freeze you out and do it with 50 votes.’" "And if you don’t use it, and don’t threaten in a way that alienates everybody, it’s another reason to be hopeful that we can actually get this thing done," he added. Ornstein made his comments at the Center for American Progress during a panel discussion which followed the Baucus speech. He was joined on the panel by former Clinton adviser Paul Begala and Time Magazine writer Karen Tumulty. The discussion was moderated by Judy Feder, a fellow with the Center for American Progress who teaches at Georgetown University. Read the Baucus remarks as prepared for delivery here.
Email
Santorum Clarifies Concerns on Women in Combat
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
I read the speech and came away knowing everything I knew before but not one thing about what the plans are.
I am 65 years old and on Medicare – I don’t have any other insurance – I can’t afford to buy it. I can’t afford to follow up on my cancer situation because i can’t pay what medicare doesn’t. What is going to be done for the senior citizens who will die before they should because they cannot afford to care for their health ? I’m concerned about every uninsured and underinsured person but it seems that senior citizens are not even considered in this problem/solution with insurance coverage. Older people do count and i hope changes will be made soon to Medicare so that i can follow up on my cancer staus soon – I believe I am already in trouble with cancer but I have to wait to find out.
Posted by: Elle | March 27, 2009, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
This is not the time to consider health care. The only way that Obama and company plan on paying for it is to go into debt. If they can come up with a method which will incur NO NEW debt then it can be put on the table but right now there is no money so it shouldn’t be on the agenda.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 27, 2009, 6:50 pm 6:50 pm
Why should we believe that the Federal government can “fix” healthcare, when they are the ones who “broke” it by creating Medicare? All of the problems with our healthcare system today can be directly traced to the creation of the entitlement program.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | March 27, 2009, 9:19 pm 9:19 pm
Elle-why would you think they would give a hoot about us antiques. Pelosi wants to tax our retirement saving, as though Congress hadn’t destroyed most of it with their greed and ineptitude.
The sooner we die, the more of tax dollars government will have to spend on other lobbyists and special interest groups.
The only thing that you and I have that government wants is the vote.
Posted by: Dave | March 27, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
The sad thing is that so many people are naive enought to think that if the government “fixes” healthcare, they are actually going to get treatment that they aren’t getting now. All that will happen is that less people will get treatment.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | March 27, 2009, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
Tons of studies show categorically that the United States has the finest medical system in the history of the universe.
In the past 34 years Americans either won or shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine 29 times.
Of the 10 most important technological, diagnostic and treatments the United States leads the way in 8.
Compared to Socialized medicine in the U.K. and Canada the United States has a far superior record in recovery from breast, prostrate and colorectal cancer.
Americans have far greater access to treatment for chronic diseases that people of other countries.
The U. S. has over three times the number of CT and MRI screening equipment per million population than any country.
Americans spend at more than 6 months waiting for hip and knee replacements while in Canada and the U.K. it often takes a year or more. Canada has 827,429 patients waiting for such procedures while the U.K. has 1.8 million waiting.
When government takes away your choice, they take away you liberty and your power
Posted by: Dave | March 27, 2009, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
America has the finest health care in the universe…if you can pay for it..Dave…there will be a new universal health care program..every thinking person agrees on that even republicans in congress..its just how we get there…Ellie, I feel for you, my mother has cancer that has metastisized…she only has to pay for her chemo pills…i wish you well and keep up your courage..it is enough to battle cancer, without having to worry about your financial situation…every citizen deserves that burden lifted.
Posted by: cowgirl | March 28, 2009, 1:44 am 1:44 am
Other countries have the suckiest healthcare in the world. And that’s where this nationalized healthcare program will take us. At least in the U.S. you have the option of finding a way to pay for it. In other countries there is no option, unless, of course, you become a criminal – or go to the U.S. for treatment. Other than that, you are at the mercy of beaurocrats. Read the case of the lady that lived in the wrong postal code in England that cannot get coverage for her cancer. The quota for the treatment she needed was met for her postal (zip) code. There were slots in other postal codes available. But because hers was full, she could not get treatment. She has one grandchild and three children. She will most likely never know her grandchildren even though her cancer is treatable. If she were in U.S. she could have chosen any number of affordable catastrophic health plans, even cancer policies and at least have the chance to live. She would have even had the option of negotiating payment arrangements, charitable institutions that help pay for drugs, and any number of other options available to her. But because she is a working class individual that paid her national healthcare all of her life in the wrong postal code in England, and can’t afford to come to the United States, or anywhere else for that matter, she may not live to see her grandchild grow up or witness the birth of any others.
Dems don’t mention those little facts, do they? Socialized medicine is not the answer. It is one more step toward total governmental control.
Has anyone else here heard about the international copyright that would allow authorities to search iPods of travelers? I just caught wind of that and don’t know it’s validity. It seems to fit right into this administration’s agenda, but I haven’t verified it yet.
Posted by: NPage | March 28, 2009, 5:46 am 5:46 am
Dear Cowgirl: I sympathize with you…my daughter had cancer and fought with her insurance company for every treatment. This is wrong. A sick person should not have to fight for each step her doctor suggests. In surance companies are not doctors and they should acquiesce to the doctor’s treatment. I hope President Obama comes up with a better plan for all. He knows how his mother had to fight for her own care so hopefully, it will be uppermost in his mind. I will pray for your Mom.
Posted by: talmag | March 28, 2009, 10:17 am 10:17 am
This is the time to consider health care. If not now, when? The problem is what kind of health care. No one should be without it. We are the United States and we should be able to provide this for everyone. I would rather pay for this than for the banks and wall street.
Posted by: talmag | March 28, 2009, 10:20 am 10:20 am
All I can say is the suicide rate amongst republicans must be very high..Any group of people who have so little hope or positive attitude or care for their fellow man is pretty much doomed to perish-one way or another
Posted by: cowgirl | March 28, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Cowgirl – How do you propose to pay for the healthcare you are advocating for? In his entire 8 years in office Bush increased the debt of the US Government by roughly 4.8 Trillion dollars. In his first 60 days in office Obama has increased the debt of the government by 412.8 Billion dollars. At this rate he will increase the debt of the Government by 2.4 Trillion dollars in his first year alone and 9.9 Trillion dollars by the end of his 4 year term in office. Since the debt owed by the Government was 10.6 Trillion dollars when he took office an additional 9.9 Trillion will almost double the debt in just 4 years. This is money that the Government does not have. Perhaps a better way would be to have a program similar to that which the government uses for its employees which is a group of insurance plans which the employee can choose from. You can Google FEHB and see what the different plans available to federal employees are. It should be noted that these are the same exact plans which are available to our elected federal officials. The government does not pay 100% of the employee health insurance and the portion they pay is considered a benefit in lieu of wages just like most major employers who provide a health benefit to their employees. Usually the larger the company (more employees) the more likely is that they provide the health insurance rather than paying the larger wage as most employees would rather have access to the health insurance instead of the small increase in wages. For an employee in California with a family looking at an HMO (California Health Net, High Option) this amounts to roughly $4.40 an hour. For the same family in California looking at a FFS (Blue Cross Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, Standard Family) this also amounts to $4.40 an hour. Small business’s which have fewer employees cannot afford to offer this type of benefit to their employees without having to make drastic cuts (layoffs) or drastically raise the price of their finished product/service both of which will probably cause the business to fail in time due to lack of profit. The federal employee still has to pay to participate in the insurance ($292 a month for the HMO and $357 a month for the FFS) so the government does not provide 100% of the insurance to the government employee. You have to remember that the federal employee is receiving his government share of the insurance funding as part of his wage and benefit package and performing labor in return, the general public would provide no benefit to the government for any government funding of their health care hence the government should provide no funding for non-employees. Perhaps another question you may want to ask yourself is how much would you pay for healthcare insurance? Would you pay $1055.00 per month to be able to partake of the HMO I used as an example? Would you be willing to pay $1120.00 per month to be able to participate in the FFS I used as an example? If yes then maybe the answer is not government paid healthcare but the government allowing all citizens to participate in their healthcare programs at their own expense (they would have to pay the total of what the government pays for their employee plus what the employee pays).
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 28, 2009, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
talmag and cowgirl – what makes you think that you won’t have to fight with the government for treatment? Medicare patients have to do that now.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | March 28, 2009, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
cowgirl – it is not about not having hope, it is being a realist. (That – and the confidence that we can take care of ourselves without being taken care of by the government.)
Posted by: ellsbells930 | March 28, 2009, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
Individuals and local and state gov’t taking care of a massive natural disaster = North Dakota this week. Individuals and local and state gov’t NOT taking care of a massive natural disaster = New Orleans 2005.
I don’t want the national government any where near my relationship with my doctor. I prefer to avert natural disaster.
Posted by: NPage | March 28, 2009, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
Sandcrab1612 – cowgirl et al aren’t going to read your post. They have their agenda and are trying to appeal to people’s emotions in order to win their point since their facts can’t hold water. Anytime I have tried to bring facts into a conversation with that one and those like him/her, they ignore all common sense and revert to emotional taglines. Your post is interesting and informative. I hope our representatives will give thought to what they are voting on like you have.
All the best -
NPage
Posted by: NPage | March 28, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
The last thing I would want is to trust my family’s health care to the government. The post office is broke, the SEC allowed the Madoff debacle, congress allowed the mortgage meltdown. Our schools spend more and more per student and lose ground against foreign education that spends less. Government is only able to grow and become more and more ineffective. We need Tort reform to limit the huge libelous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, we need government out of medicare. We need to keep our doctors and researchers incentivised to provide great care and find cures. None of that will happen with government.
Posted by: Gary | March 28, 2009, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Dave: “Tons of studies show categorically that the United States has the finest medical system in the history of the universe.”
And yet our life expectancy at birth lags behind (in no particular order) France, Germany, Canada, Japan, the U.K, Italy, Norway, Greece, Hong Kong, Australia, and a few dozen other countries, including such medically benighted countries as Jordan, Bosnia, Puerto Rico, etc.
Of course, we make up for that by spending from 2 to 10 times more per capita for all those fancy procedures that nonetheless seem to let us die sooner.
Posted by: James | March 28, 2009, 8:45 pm 8:45 pm
James said “And yet our life expectancy at birth lags behind …..” That isn’t due to our healthcare system, but more to the bad habits of our citizens. If we took better care of ourselves, then we would be second to none.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | March 28, 2009, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
If you have insurance you pay alot for nothing, same for medicare. Medicade limits what you get also… Unless your independantly wealthy or in Congress…don’t hold your breath. People who have health insurance thru employers & get very sick & need extensive care, are fired, then No insurance anyway. Cobra is a joke. It’s all about getting your dollars anyway they can.Banks, wallstreet, insurance & gov’t, have their ways, it’s all a scam. Work hard & don’t buy anything, save every penny & get sick & you still can’t afford healthcare.
Posted by: from Ohio | March 28, 2009, 11:56 pm 11:56 pm
James – Its all a numbers game and you have to look at what is taken into consideration when they put their numbers togather. As an example some of the studies count all deaths, this can be somewhat misleading as this country kills more people in automobile accidents then any other country. To count these when comparing to a country where most people do not have an automobile will result in a skewed result. Need to make sure that they are comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Another item which can be misleading of counted would be the members of our military who die while on active duty (wheather in battle or from an accident during training), most other countries do not have a military as large as ours so the resulting deaths should be smaller. Not saying that you are totally incorrect just that you need to make sure that the comparisons are 100% of the same items and not skewed by invalid comparisons
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 29, 2009, 1:34 am 1:34 am
from Ohio – refer to my Mar 28, 2009 12:49:12 PM as to the health insurance for members of Congress. If they want something better they are paying with there own money for it.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 29, 2009, 1:39 am 1:39 am
Sandcrab1612: Have you considered the same logic to your mortgage? If you can’t buy your house in Cash, may be you should wait! You will say, I assume, that that is different. A house is a good investment in the long run. Well, so is heath care reform. Those of us who consider the whole issue together with no luxury to cherry pick half the evidence know that if we don’t fix health care now, our debt is not going to get down but will spike exponentially. There is no option. It already is late.
Posted by: Zazu | March 29, 2009, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
But the government should not pay for your healthcare or any portion of it unless you are a government employee. Just because you pay taxes does not entitle you to pay receive free health care. Remember you do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 29, 2009, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
Zazu – The Federal government is the ROOT of the problem with healthcare, and you expect them to fix it??? Every policy that insurance companies have in place, that everyone complains about, happened through Medicare regs first. The insurance companies followed Medicare’s lead. In the past there has typically been an 18 month lag time between Medicare implementing a regulation & private insurance following suit.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | March 29, 2009, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
A little off topic, but in response to Zazu: Quite frankly, I am all for buying a house with cash. Can you imagine the minimal impact the current economic “crisis” would have had if most people had bought their home with cash or mostly cash – or only had 5 year mortgages instead of 30 year mortgages?
Posted by: NPage | March 30, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
Government health care should come with all the strings attached. You can’t smoke, drink, have sex out of wedlock, over eat or any other form of risky lifestyle. Just imagine how many government jobs can be created in order to monitor everyone’s life to insure they follow the quidelines. It will end aids because everyone will quit doing drugs and having sex. It will end unwanted pregnancies because only married couples will have sex. It will create review boards to determine if your life is worth the investment of the treatment you need, or if it’s better for the system to let you die. Just imagine how great it will be!! Think how carefree our lives can all be when the government does it all for us!! That is, of course, until they decide we don’t meet their needs any longer. Ahh the bliss!!
Reality is, no thanks, I’ll do my best to provide for myself and my loved ones. The government has enough trouble trying to manage itsself, let alone anyone else.
Posted by: mike621mi | March 30, 2009, 11:53 am 11:53 am
Maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess if we had universal healthcare. It is a fact that health care costs were a major factor in bringing down the domestic automakers. We spend more per capita and more per GDP on healthcare than anyone else. Much of the money that goes to healthcare is siphoned off by the parasitic “insurance” industry.
Posted by: boogoo | May 6, 2009, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm
When the private insurance label you as an “UN-INSURABLE”, then what do you do next? Cry? Too late if you have a serious disease. Whereas Single payer Univeral Health is ” Every US citizen IN AND NOBODY LEFT OUT”. Why won’t anyone like that?
Posted by: Mary Kay | May 6, 2009, 9:44 pm 9:44 pm
Medicare for all, universal healthcare for all, the only way to go, leave the private health insurance out of the equation……
Posted by: Thomas Mike | May 6, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
The hilarious part of all of this is the poor gaggle of fools and patsies who actually think they are “insured” with their private health care plans.
It’s far past time that the US follow the advanced nations’ lead and adopt socialized medicine for all. The profit motive has no place in medicine in any country making a claim to be even remotely “civilized”.
Posted by: patrick411 | May 6, 2009, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm