By Caitlin Taylor

Jul 28, 2009 8:12am

The Note: Intramurals — Health Care Progress Pits Dems vs. Dems

By RICK KLEIN Can you call it one-party control if nobody’s in, well, control? Because of the numbers, the political dynamics, the urgency, and the various complications, the debate over health care reform is and remains an intra-party debate. Save for a few stray Senate Republicans, this is a Democratic discussion — and a growing Democratic problem, as prospects for quick passage dim. Democrats can look for villains (and repeat villainous quotes) but the votes they need reside inside their own caucus. (Which is one thing that complicates the public end of the campaign, as President Obama visits the AARP Tuesday for a “tele-town” hall, and congressional Democrats prep for an event-heavy recess: The pressure needs to come on Democrats’ friends, not their enemies.) In the House, it’s the Blue Dog Democrats who, by themselves, are stalling work in the Energy and Commerce Committee, to say nothing of what they could do on the House floor. As for the flickers of bipartisanship that are left in Congress, careful what you wish for: Senate Finance Committee talks are set to exacerbate tensions inside the Democratic Party — this time, enraging the left. The latest out of that last refuge of bipartisanship will test the Democratic Party’s cohesiveness anew. Senators are seriously discussing dropping the public option, along with the employer mandate: “A bipartisan group of senators is closing in on a health care compromise that omits key Democratic priorities but seeks to hold down costs, as lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol labor to deliver sweeping health legislation to President Barack Obama,” per the AP’s David Espo and Erica Werner.  “Three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee were edging closer to a compromise that excludes a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for large businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite Obama’s support for such a plan.” “[Senate Finance Chairman Max] Baucus said he has been speaking to President Obama almost daily about the talks,” per ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf. “There is no deal yet on any issue, and all negotiators are careful to qualify that ‘we don’t agree on anything until we agree on everything.’ But some themes of what a compromise could look like are starting to emerge.”  Fire up the left: “This compromise does nothing except reform insurance. It is not worthless because it makes it fair, but it is not health care reform,” former DNC Chairman Howard Dean said on MSNBC Monday.  The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel takes on the Blue Dogs: “At this moment — when 72 percent of the nation supports a public plan option and 14,000 people lose their healthcare every day — the House Blue Dogs and conservative Democratic Senators are doing just about everything they can to cripple real health care reform,” she writes for Huffington Post. “They are, in fact, out of touch and out of the mainstream — like the rest of their conservative brethren.”  The emerging choice for the president: “If the three Democrats and three Republicans [negotiating inside the Finance Committee] can pull off a grand bargain, it will have to be more conservative than the measures proposed by the House or the left-leaning Senate health committee. And that could force Mr. Obama to choose between backing the bipartisan deal or rank-and-file Democrats who want a bill that more closely reflects their liberal ideals,” David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear report in The New York Times. (And reform is being fueled by chocolate-covered potato chips — “chippers,” from North Dakota.)  Where the opposition party matters: “Having achieved a rhetorical victory with their call to discard arbitrary deadlines in favor of drafting quality legislation, Republicans are now pushing Democrats to dump the treasured policy priorities that make up the HELP bill and various legislative proposals circulating in the House,” Roll Call’s David M. Drucker reports.  Over in the House: “Top Democrats had hoped to bring the legislation to the House floor before lawmakers leave town Friday for a monthlong recess. But House Democrats are sharply divided over core issues, including how to finance the bill costing $1 trillion or more over 10 years and how to contain the rapid growth in health-care costs,” Greg Hitt writes in The Wall Street Journal.  The costs of a large majority: “Even if they won’t acknowledge it publicly, most Democrats in Congress know the truth: It’s their own colleagues who are slowing down progress in both the House and the Senate,” Politico’s Patrick O’Connor reports. “Back in 2005, Democrats made a concerted push to recruit conservative candidates to help them win in Republican-leaning districts. . . . But now Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are grappling with the downside: To get health care reform through Congress, they’re going to have to get it past these new, more conservative members of their party.”  The costs of being in control: “The experience of the 15 years since Bill Clinton failed to win passage of legislation suggests that the price of inaction may be even higher than the cost of Obama’s plan,” Bloomberg’s Matthew Benjamin and Brian Faler report. “Congress refused to touch the issue for a decade after the collapse of Clinton’s 1994 bid. A similar outcome this year would likely add millions to the ranks of the uninsured, boost costs for businesses and workers, and do nothing about what may be the top threat to the government’s long-term fiscal health, proponents of the plan argue.”  Paging some deal-makers: “In big-time politics, personalities matter. If you want evidence, just look at the wrangling over health care,” Gerald Seib writes in his “Capital Journal” column. “In this case, it’s the absence on the front lines of four big personalities — Rep. John Dingell, Sen. Ted Kennedy, former Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John McCain — that helps explain why Congress and the Obama administration are having such a hard time getting something done.”  Time’s Mark Halperin has five relationships holding up health care reform (and notice how many involve intramural action): “1. House Democrats-Senate Democrats. 2. Blue Dogs-Henry Waxman. 3. Harry Reid-Max Baucus. 4. Grassley/Snowe/Enzi-other Republican Senators. 5. The media-the story of Professor Gates.”  Gearing up for August’s health care ad wars: “So far, two dozen groups have spent more than $46 million on TV ads in an effort to influence policymakers, says Evan Tracey, president of the nonpartisan Campaign Media Analysis Group,” per ABC’s Devin Dwyer. “That’s nearly double what Tracey estimates stakeholders spent on ads during the failed health care reform effort of the early 1990s.”  Still at the table — for now: “We’re going to continue to talk about the areas where we do have concern. We’ve been very clear that we do not support a government-run insurance plan,” Robert Zirkelbach of America’s Health Insurance Plans said Monday on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line.”  More tough lessons from Mass.: “As the debate in Washington heats up, local executives warn that two goals of the Obama administration — expanding insurance coverage and controlling spending — may prove incompatible,” The Boston Globe’s Robert Weisman reports. “And as Massachusetts strains to deal with the increasing costs of its successful healthcare program, they raise questions about who will pay for the projected $1 trillion cost on the federal level.”  Obama works the outside-inside thing Tuesday, while inside the Beltway. He travels to AARP headquarters in Washington for a “tele-town hall” meeting at 1:30 pm ET. It keeps a key stakeholder close: “The president knows the support of the 50-plus community will be critical for health care reform,” said AARP Chief Communications Officer Kevin Donnellan. The forum will stream live.  Also Tuesday: Elizabeth Edwards testifies on medical bankruptcies in front of a House Judiciary Committee subcommittee, at 11 am ET.  Judge Sonia Sotomayor gets her Senate Judiciary Committee vote Tuesday, with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the only Republican on the panel saying he plans to support her Supreme Court nomination. (Chief Justice John Roberts got the votes of three Democrats on the committee, in 2005.) If you need evidence that the confirmation process has changed, probably forever, what does it say that senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, are opposing a nominee for the first time in their careers? “The lineup signals Sotomayor will win confirmation in the Senate by a comfortable margin and become the first Latino justice, but she will do so without much Republican support,” David G. Savage writes in the Los Angeles Times.  Said Grassley: “I think it’s a whole new ballgame, a lot different than I approached it with [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg and [Justice Stephen G.] Breyer.” “I think I’m led to believe that [Sotomayor's] personal views may play a more prominent role than I think they ought to by justices of the Supreme Court,” Grassley tells the Des Moines Register’s Thomas Beaumont.  Plus, happy hour (or something like it) is set at the White House: Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley will have beers with President Obama Thursday at 6 pm ET, per ABC’s Jake Tapper. (Two of the three participants will be off-duty, presumably.)  Think they’ll listen to the tapes? “The material indicates that Crowley was unaware Gates was black when he reached the scene. But the often indistinct recordings leave vexingly unanswered most questions about the incident that has captured worldwide attention,” Peter Schworm and John Ellement report in The Boston Globe. “The tapes fail to establish whether blame for escalating the encounter falls at the feet of Gates, who Crowley said called him a racist cop, or of Crowley, whom Gates later labeled a ‘rogue cop.’ They leave unreconciled sharply divergent accounts of the incident offered by the two men.”  “In the radio dispatches, a police officer identifies Gates as the man inside the house, saying he is uncooperative,” per ABC’s Huma Khan and Jake Tapper. “Except for vague noises in the background, the conversation between Gates and the officers is mostly unclear. Since Gates cannot be heard on the police tapes, the tapes do not settle the differing accounts between Gates and the arresting officer.”  Surely this will quiet the birthers: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” reads the new statement put out by state officials Monday.  Per Dan Nakaso, of The Honolulu Advertiser: “A congressional resolution introduced by Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie commemorating the 50th anniversary of Island statehood was postponed today apparently because of a ‘whereas’ clause noting Obama’s Hawaii birthplace. The line ‘Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;’ has been construed by some who believe Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. Citizenship, Abercrombie spokesman Dave Helfert said.”  Vice President Joe Biden joins Attorney General Eric Holder on the stimulus salesmanship trail Tuesday. At 10:15 am ET at Philadelphia City Hall, per the White House, “they will make a major American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding announcement for law enforcement agencies across the nation. They will be joined by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, Delaware Governor Jack Markell, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and City of Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey.” It’s $1 billion in aid going out — but not everyone’s getting a share. Not the best of frames: “Four major cities — New York, Seattle, Houston, and Pittsburgh — will get no money from a $1 billion economic stimulus program to help cities avoid laying off police officers, officials told The Associated Press on Monday,” per the AP’s Devlin Barrett. “The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the details publicly, said about 7,000 state and local agencies applied for aid under the COPS program that is part of the $787 billion stimulus package passed earlier this year. Only about 1,000 were approved.”  (Paging Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Bob Casey, and Arlen Specter . . . ) Double-sided copies, the deficit, and you: “Ninety-eight days ago, at President Obama’s first Cabinet meeting on April 20, the president asked his Cabinet to come up with $100 million in spending cuts within 90 days. Today the administration made that list public, with $102 million in cuts that would be realized in FY 2009,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reports.  Old business: “More than eight months after President Barack Obama won the White House, the remnants of his campaign organization is struggling to deal with some unfinished business: returning about $669,000 in tainted or illegal campaign contributions to a motley assortment of donors, among them a convicted murderer, Washington lobbyists and a number of foreign nationals, including his own aunt,” Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel reports. “But the 11 Chicago-based staff members still on the campaign’s payroll are finding it was a lot easier to rake in a record-shattering $750 million than to identify and return donations that ran afoul of federal election laws or Obama’s own strict fundraising standards.”  New business — China summit, Day Two: “President Obama [Monday] kicked off senior-level talks in Washington between the United States and rising world power China to tackle economic and foreign policy issues,” ABC’s Matthew Jaffe and Kirit Radia report. “One point of emphasis for U.S. officials will be making it clear to the Chinese that they should not count on U.S. consumer spending to help rescue their export-heavy economy from recession.”  Rough news day for Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.: “According to excerpts from a deposition obtained by ABC News, Democratic Senators Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad knew they were receiving preferential treatment on loans from Countrywide Financial, the nation’s formerly-largest home lender,” ABC’s Kristina Wong reports. “Robert Feinberg, a former loan officer for Countrywide, testified to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigator that Dodd and Conrad knew they were getting special ‘VIP’ discounts on personal mortgages, in 2003 and 2004 respectively.”  Does he need or want friends like these? “As Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut assumes a central role in the debate over health care, the pharmaceutical industry has helped finance efforts to bolster his image back home as he braces for a potentially bruising re-election contest,” Raymond Hernandez writes for The New York Times. “The industry’s campaign-style push for Mr. Dodd, part of a larger effort to highlight the work of certain lawmakers around the country, portray him as a defender of ordinary citizens in brochures sent to more than 100,000 homes in Connecticut and in a 30-second television spot that ran for three weeks.” 
  The rare case when the GOP establishment be could not be happier to lose an incumbent: Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., “announced Monday that he’s ending his bid for a third term, bringing to a close a multimonth-long saga that pitted the 77-year-old Hall of Famer against a Republican leadership that sent strong signals that he should step aside for the good of the party,” McClatchy’s Halimah Abdullah reports.  Waiting game in New York: “Call her Hamlet-on-the-Hill. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) can’t seem to decide when – or even if – she wants to launch her primary challenge against U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand,” David Saltonstall reports in the New York Daily News.  Is it just possible there will be an interesting mayor race after all? “New York City Comptroller William Thompson, the top Democratic challenger, trails Mayor Michael Bloomberg 47-37 percent among New York City voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. This 10-point gap is less than half of Mayor Bloomberg’s 54-32 percent lead June 16.” Down in Texas, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison staffs up for her primary challenge against Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas: Terry Sullivan will serve as campaign manager; Jennifer Coxe-Baker as senior communications advisor; Jeff Sadosky as press secretary; and Joe Pounder will leave Rep. Eric Cantor’s, R-Va., office to serve as deputy communications director. 
The Kicker: “If I had some DNA it wouldn’t assuage those who don’t believe he was born here.” — White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, responding to the “birthers” from the podium.  “Over the past year, some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate have done everything in their power to dry up my fundraising.” — Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., making his last pitch a high, hard one. 
Today on the “Top Line” political Webcast, live at noon ET: Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.; Republican consultant Kevin Madden. Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

Intern for the ABC News Political Unit: The ABC News Political Unit is now seeking a full-time fall intern in Washington, D.C.
The internship begins Monday, Aug. 17, and runs through Friday, December 18. Not only do Political Unit interns attend political events and write for the politics page of ABCNews.com, including contributions to The Note, they also help us by conducting research, maintaining contact lists, and building the next day’s political schedule. In order to apply, you must be either a graduate student or a college student who has completed his or her first year. You also must be able to work eight hours per day, starting early, Monday through Friday. Interns will be paid $8.50/hour. If you write well, don’t mind getting up early, and have some familiarity with web publishing, send a cover letter and resume to politicalunit@abcnews.com as soon as possible, with the subject line: “INTERN” in all caps. Please indicate in your cover letter the dates of your availability.

User Comments

Ignore the Republican party of NO! We don’t need their stinkin’ votes! Wait a minute. That didn’t come out right.

Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 8:40 am 8:40 am

That’s OK. Harry Reid said he’s willing to give the Republicans more time to come around. What a guy!

Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 8:54 am 8:54 am

Scrubbing a public option gets nearly all of the Blue Dogs on board, so this thing might yet get done by recess. But is Obama on board?

Posted by: matt | July 28, 2009, 9:06 am 9:06 am

So much for bi-partisan checks and balances in the U.S. democracy; or democrazy, as the case may be. This White House should be called the ‘White House Delicatessen’ for the way they endlessly and shamelessly slice baloney. Transparency? The only transparency I detect is my ability to see right through the President and his dangerous policies.

Posted by: Banderman | July 28, 2009, 9:06 am 9:06 am

Health Care Progress Pits Dems vs. Dems
Why is it that those who are against this health care proposal are labeled as against any health care reform at all. Why is this bill labeled as ‘progress’. Maybe the Blue dog dems or republicans have a better idea. Am Health care doesn’t need reform. Health care costs do.

Posted by: betsy | July 28, 2009, 9:07 am 9:07 am

It occurred to me this morning as I was getting ready for work that the Obama provision in the health care bill requires all insurance companies to exempt the illegals from paying and at the same time, the illegals get coverage. This has the very direct consequence of encouraging illegal immigration. Then the private insurance companies will have to raise rates and that in effect would make the public option cheaper. Wow, that Obama, he is really thinking for this country NOT!! This man has only evil intent. Why would you propose a program that seeks to bring down this country that is already standing on its last financial leg?

Posted by: Gina | July 28, 2009, 9:15 am 9:15 am

You want healthcare reform? Encourage more private competition by making it possible for people to invest in insurance companies. You want to ENCOURAGE small companies to have health coverage, then increase competition in the private sector and at the same time, make it possible for insurance companies to make money. It’s a win win situation, but it won’t ever fly with Obama because capitalism is evil.

Posted by: Gina | July 28, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am

Unlike Republicans, Democrats don’t line up like lemmings to toe the party line. It’s unfortunate however that they can’t come together for such an important reform at a time they really need to seize the moment.

Posted by: Eric | July 28, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am

Unlike Republicans, Democrats don’t line up like lemmings to toe the party line. It’s unfortunate however that they can’t come together for such an important reform at a time they really need to seize the moment.

Posted by: Eric | July 28, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am

Gina (9:15 AM); About your comment. It makes me wonder who in government has a vested interest in slipping illegals into it? Pretty damn evil stuff, huh?

Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am

These “blue dig democrats” are actually republicans in democrats clothing! If they screw this up (no public option) they will pay in the next voting cycle.

Posted by: crazy | July 28, 2009, 9:32 am 9:32 am

to take care of the healthcare why don’t we just give Medicare a facelift? We’ve all been to the doctors – one I went to would only take care of one thing at a time – make another appointment for another question…What’s with that? These doctors and pharmacuticals need an awake up call. that’s all – theyc an still live large, but give the American people a break, get reasonable is all the American people ask. As for the new healthcare – if we get it so should Washington….

Posted by: artinthewild | July 28, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am

Actually, the “blue-dog” Democrats have their constituents back home to hold them accountable. Right now, 70% Americans do NOT want Obama’s health care reform. And, this number continues to grow as Obama’s numbers continue to decline. The “blue-dogs” see this…they are serving for the people and by the people, NOT for Obama and by Obama. There’s a BIG difference, and now, Obama, who many of his followers think he was born in a manger, is realizing his ‘brainwashing’ of the American public and come to an end.

Posted by: dk | July 28, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am

I can’t believe that the democrats have all this power, and yet we don’t. Something that seemed so simple has been turned into a nightmare. That’s politics for you!

Posted by: js45601 | July 28, 2009, 9:37 am 9:37 am

Gina, we’re talking a conservative approach vs liberal and NOT Dem vs Republican. I’d much rather they take their time and try to do it “right” then shove some piece of c$%p legislation down their own throats and saddle the citizens with a financial burden that will last decades. I’ll start looking at blue-dog democrats in the next election and if i like what i see, vs a left-leaning republican like Specter, Snow and Collins, I’ll vote for the Dem in a heart beat.

Posted by: Holycow | July 28, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am

Obamas brownnoseing media; Obama’s just taking a page from Clinton’s playbook. In 2004, when this interview with Obama took place, Obama blamed it (ramming legislation through before anyone knows what it’s about) on Bush! This guy is slowly becoming exposed. Hopefully it’s before he does too much permanent damage. He sure has some people fooled with his slick delivery though.

Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am

Holycow; “a left-leaning republican like Specter” I’m sure you know this, but Spector is a ‘Democrat’ these days.

Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 9:48 am 9:48 am

As was stated by a previous poster; “These “blue dig democrats” are actually republicans in democrats clothing! If they screw this up (no public option) they will pay in the next voting cycle.” There are none so blind as those who ‘just will not see’!

Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am

I don’t know about you, but no one knows what is being proposed in this Healthcare bill and how it will effect them. I know I will feel better when the President and Congress is on the SAME Healthcare System that the rest of the country is put on. Till then, we are not going to get good Healthcare. Everything I read out on this is that people will be getting worse care, less care, and ultimately paying more for it in the long run. Not what they are trying to sell us. Do not go by what is being sold and do your own research. I’m not impressed. So till these politicians are on the same system I am against it. Give up on the Dem. & Rep. drama on this. It is your life they are deciding. Literally!

Posted by: Retired | July 28, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am

Blue Dog Democrats…If they actually stop this healthcare ‘reform’, I surely will look at casting a vote their way in the future…Thank Heaven for the Blue Dogs as they put on the brakes. Maybe the office of President should take the Hippocratic Oath required by physicians…If you can do no good, do no harm…

Posted by: norma | July 28, 2009, 10:05 am 10:05 am

Well, one thing is for sure now. This bill no longer has legs until it get’s revamped. (No Republicans + No Blue Dogs Dems) = No! Pelosi can proclaim it’s “alive!” all she wants, but she’s just politically posturing….. Let’s get something that’s fair, reasonable, and has the interests of hard working, tax paying Americans at heart (which is pretty much everyone whose not a part of the ruling elite).

Posted by: LongT | July 28, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am

Et tu Brute. – ITWARZ

Posted by: ITWARZ | July 28, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am

The unkindest cut of all… ITWARZ

Posted by: ITWARZ | July 28, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am

Thank goodness for the few Democrats known as Blue dogs. Stand your ground. It’s refreshing to know, and what a distinction it is, there are some statesmen left in our government who are willing to go up against the power of the very powerful Democratic Party, to abandon party politics as usual in the interest of representing the people of their states.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | July 28, 2009, 10:17 am 10:17 am

If Obama’s health care plan, that is being shoved down the American taxpayer’s throat, is so good why is the bill so complicated and long that most elected people will not read it? TAX PAYERS WILL NOT GET TO READ IT. And most important why does this bill not cover all the Democratic liberals who have decided THEY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE IT? Talk about a socialist government this is what we have. Our freedoms are quickly being destroyed by the socialist in office.
Hitler decided who lived and died and the policians who vote for this bill will be no better. To cut down on health care cost the first thing to be done is to require men and women who decide to have children at the expense of welfare be required to practice birth control and to get a job. The tax payers are footing the bill for free loaders and eventually the whole country will be a welfare state. When that happens one government will be in control and we will no longer have the freedoms we are quickly losing.

Posted by: Sue Casterline | July 28, 2009, 10:18 am 10:18 am

I want to comment on page 425 of Obama’s health care bill that says seniors must go to mandatory counseling to end their suffering–or commit suicide. I want this investigated–it is atrocious and sounds like Fascism. I also understand Obama wants to cut 500 million from seniors for health care, stop it at a certain age, and seniors would not even be able to buy health care. Obama sounds like a new Hitler to me–all he needs is to say put the seniors in death ovens! he is a dangerous man.

Posted by: Sandra Simon | July 28, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am

Retired; You don’t want the Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan the government employees are on unless you can afford a monthly premium of $375 for family coverage and still shoulder the same sort of co-payments and deductibles most all insureds must bear. By the way the overall cost of insuring a congressperson or senator is over $1300/mo. The other $1100 comes out of their employer’s pocket. We’re their employer. So how does having their insurance plan help you? Better question…how does them having their insurance plan benefit you?

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | July 28, 2009, 10:26 am 10:26 am

I can only hope the President has the ####### to just say no to a bill with no public option. Otherwise, real reform will never happen.

Posted by: hang | July 28, 2009, 10:28 am 10:28 am

Get it together Democrats! you hold the Power and why the People put you there so grow a spine stop letting the Republicans bully you! oh and Blue Dogs you call yourselves Democrats then work with your Party already, And not the Republicans or Lobbysist working for the Lobbysit is the Republicans job!

Posted by: Angie in Pa | July 28, 2009, 10:47 am 10:47 am

Our economic predicament and the resulting unemployment figures (who are real people with need for medical care) makes the healthcare problem worse every day. The best way out is not to pay for free healthcare for all those who are uninsured without reducing the number of unemployed. The way out is to attack the jobs shortage, give the private sector incentive to expand operations and hire more workers, thereby shrinking the unemployment numbers. The American public is for the most part intelligent enough to hedge against illness and injury by securing insurance if they can afford it and have access to it. While we are attempting to become an adequately employed nation the causes of high cost healthcare should be attacked to bring costs down for everyone whether they’re insured or uninsured. Jobs must be priority one. This healthcare reform focus which doesn’t attack the problems is the product of DYSLECTIC REASONING. First comes the horse and the cart follows.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | July 28, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am

dk: Where do you get your numbers? Seventy % do not want the President’s health reform package? You couldn’t get 70% to agree on free gasoline unless you closed all bars and prohibited the consumption of alcohol for two days to clear minds and bodies. On the yellow rabbits/blue dogs: They are a complete mystery, and I believe they cannot even support their position(s) if they undertand them at all.

Posted by: clever bob | July 28, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am

Not only should Health Insurance coverage being given to undocumented immigrant LAWBREAKERS be dead upon arrival but any politician, Democrat or Republican, who supports such a sickening give away idea must be voted out of office at the next opportunity.

Posted by: Chuck | July 28, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am

I can’t believe that the democrats have all this power, and yet we don’t. Something that seemed so simple has been turned into a nightmare. That’s politics for you!
Posted by: js45601 | Jul 28, 2009 9:37:11 AM
*************************************
You had it for 6 years under Bush.

Posted by: Fedup | July 28, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am

Health and life insurance companies in the US and abroad have nearly $4.5 billion dollars invested in tobacco stocks. The largest being Prudential ($1.5 billion!) and Sun Life Financial ($1 billion in Phillip Morris. . . oops Altria). This shameful investing makes them less likely to join anti tobacco coalitions, or endorse anti tobacco legislation. They are reaping profits from a cancer causing industry! Shameful.

Posted by: WhatLogic | July 28, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am

The govt has proven it can’t run a public option responsibily. Take a look at SS and Medicare both in serious financial trouble. Congress could never resist the pull to make public option plans cheap by pooring more Federal money into it, to win votes. Would the public option be subject to state insurance laws? If not that would already be a cost advantage. The plan would have forced anyone looking for individual coverage into the public option which stimies competition. And Congress ignored some costs that could be cut such as overllapping regulation between states and Federal, not allowing plans to compete across state lines, not streamlining claims across all insurers so there is one claim method or a claims clearinghouse. That would cut insurance company costs as well as providers. And taxing small business owners is sure to cut job growth. Incremental steps may be a better approach than a new govt agency and all the costs it incurs.Plus a cheap public option would surely put insurers out of business resulting in the govt controlling it all and rationing care. As we all knew the govt leaders cannot be trusted to do what is best for the country. The Blue Dogs were the only ones interested in what was best.

Posted by: jschmidt | July 28, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am

The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel takes on the Blue Dogs: “At this moment — when 72 percent of the nation supports a public plan option and 14,000 people lose their healthcare every day — the House Blue Dogs and conservative Democratic Senators are doing just about everything they can to cripple real health care reform,” she writes for Huffington Post. “They are, in fact, out of touch and out of the mainstream — like the rest of their conservative brethren.”
Wake Up….that poll is OUTDATED!!!!!!!
Out of touch?…Katrina….try keeping up dear! The more the American people find out about this scheme, the less the want it. Even in that poll with the 72%, that number dropped when the questions truned the COST of the plan and WHO would pay for it!

Posted by: Mike_C | July 28, 2009, 11:59 am 11:59 am

WhatLogic; Is that supposed to be a surprise? Insurance companies are for profit corporations with the biggest lobby effort in Washington. There’s nothing sacrificial or benevolent about them. They demand punctuality when collecting premiums but pay out benefits if and only when they’ve exhausted all means to avoid paying. They write language into their contracts that is appropriate for interpretation only by experts in the field and they structure their policies so it will always cost us more to buy insurance than it would to pay cash direct to doctors for the same services. Insurance companies are part of the problem, not the solution. But they’re still better than turning healthcare over to the government.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | July 28, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm

One might suspect blue dog democrats, democrats, republicans and independents in the pockets of large corporations might be against healthcare reform.
It’s not so much a partisan issue, it’s a wealth issue.
Despite that point, President Obama is in a difficult position. Everyone knows healthcare system reform & informatics is necessary. However by providing radical healthcare reform, [with the last 30 yrs of capitalistic healthcare so enmeshed into our economy]
it may at this point increase the other national problem of unemployment.
This is why irresponsible capitalism has crippled our country.
I admire President’s commitment to address this difficult problem, and encourage the first step–by covering the unemployed, the underinsured for illness care.

Posted by: gus amaral | July 28, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm

Get it together Democrats! you hold the Power and why the People put you there so grow a spine stop letting the Republicans bully you! oh and Blue Dogs you call yourselves Democrats then work with your Party already, And not the Republicans or Lobbysist working for the Lobbysit is the Republicans job!
——————————–
Angie in Pa,
so, here comes the usual typical & so very predictable liberal responses….
Guess what…a little piece of the Democratic party is not willing to just jump off the cliff because Obama said to. These men & women actually want to be heard on this issue…wow…amazing isn’t it? The people that they represent DO NOT want them to play the loyal lemming!
And now from the liberal attack mutts….listen and hear the machine unleased on those who just wont just walk in blind lock step for a bad bill!
Day after day, more people are understanding that even in this foolish HR3200, there is NO urgency! All of that sky is falling BS has finally turning into the boy who cried wolf!
Angie,…the PEOPLE are now turning agianst this kind of “healthcare reform”.
The foolish shell game of how to pay for it has been blown up. The sense of “Unregency” has been proven FALSE! And after the fiasco of the great “Stimulator”, the PEOPLE are demanding that that those who vote on this actually READ & UNDERSTAND it this time!

Posted by: Mike_C | July 28, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm

It’s nice to know that there are some members of congress who are willing to stand up for their principles and not just bow down to the party leaders demands. Healthcare reform is very important but this is not the reform we need or want. This is a government power grab that will limit our freedom of choice…its just the foot in the door so they can create a universal government health care sytem and we need to keep the heat on them in order to stop it. If the true intention is to bring down costs, why is there no tort reform on the table!? Probably because….and this is coming from the AHCA language…the government plan will not be subject to any lawsuits for malpractice. The entire bill is vague and “requirements” determined by the beaurocrats can easily be set at unattainable levels to force private insurance out. IT WILL HAPPEN IF WE ALLOW THIS BILL TO PASS IN ITS CURRENT FORM! Call your senators and demand they stop this or they will pay serious consequences.

Posted by: Curt | July 28, 2009, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm

Long T…have you read the bill being proposed? I have and there is some terrifying legal language in there that will destroy the healthcare system. It is not just about providing for uninsured people…thats the propoganda to gain support. It is designed to push out private insurers and we will have no choice when it comes to insurance(it is not intened to “compete”, there is no such thing as competing with the government when they can print money and set the rules in their favor!). It clearly states multiple times that preference when giving grants and contracts will be given to minorities and “underserved populations” rather than the most deserving and qualified. It will also use other “entities” to help run the system and direct people to the government option…can you say ACORN!? There are “affordability credits” so basically, if you earn a good income, you will be paying more for the same level of care as everyone else(some might call that redistribution of wealth…but the President doesn’t want that right!?) Government is exempt from judicial action and so will the government healthcare…when you only have one choice and no recourse, care will decline and services will be rationed…its common sense!

Posted by: Curt | July 28, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm

guess the ‘caps lock and exclamation mark’ crew haven’t lost their jobs, nor suffered a
tragic injury, nor at risk of losing their homes…

Posted by: gus amaral | July 28, 2009, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm

what I want to know from all the liberals who run al over these blogs fallpin their gums about how we pay twice as much as other “first world” nations will take the bill I recently recieved from an ER Vist that was just over $1200 down to $600.
We hear all the foolishness of moving money around, savings from a national database (what is in and of itself a huge lie…since it will take YEARS to actualy create a universal database with patients history for over 300,000,000 people!!!) and we will tax the “rich”.
I have not yet read or heard anyone take a basic example of a bill and explain how each charge on that bill WILL be reduced by ANY plan…from left, from the right or from the current system.
I have read that some want to have no maximum payouts for a year or a lifetime. Again, nice idea, great thought, BUT how to implement it and actually make it work?
These are the things Congress should be spending their time on. Anyone of us is capable of running around the country making speeches about what we need and how bad we need it. We need leadership that will sit down, determine a path & be straight with the people about the pluses & the minuses of the the approach.
Since HR3200 provided for 18 months from the date of signing to create an initial set of benefits, THERE IS NO RUSH here at all.
We have heard nothing about how to actually accomplish lowering these costs. Also, we have heard nothing about how to handle all the very real and very large costs coming down the road at us in the form of end of life treatment for the baby boomers and the fact with over 300 Million people, we have more people with cancer in our country than entire population of a counry like Sweden.
Just those 2 factors alone should teall any reasonable person that the BS that is being tossed about..including Obama’s incredibly STUPID pleadge to not sign a bill that increases the deficit (and remember…he MEANS it!!!)… is not going to change the cost structure we now have.
Are doctors going to be paid less for their services? Nurses? Radiologists? Phyical Therapists?
Will hospitals be required to charge less for services?
How do you make that 1200 bill transmute to 600 ? Or that 50,000 stay for cancer treatments become “only” 25,000?
I wish I had the “great” answer, All I know is that running around making grandstand plays and speeches is not going to have any real impact. I know from reading HR3200 that these are NOT the issues being taken on in congress. They are fighting and battling over nothing more than an overbloated guideline. It is not a plan, it is passing the buck on virtually every real tough choice.
The only thing that Obama has put on the table here that moves things ahead is the pre-exisiting conditions demand. Just one problem though, again…where is the money going to come from to pay for those who are in that boat? Not for their insurance, …but for the treatments they will require. Will the government just absorb any costs that are not accounted for ?
Also, one thing that can help right off the top… This new system MUST be for US citizens or those here LEGALLY! NO ONE ELSE!

Posted by: Mike_c | July 28, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm

If you remove murders and car deaths, the US has the longest lifespan. To me that is indicative of quality healthcare.

Posted by: deanbob | July 28, 2009, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm

Why is there no discussion about the absence of US support to Honduras? The removal of the former president was done legally and by his own party. Does this country no longer believe in liberty?

Posted by: deanbob | July 28, 2009, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm

If you remove murders and car deaths, the US has the longest lifespan. To me that is indicative of quality healthcare.
Posted by: deanbob | Jul 28, 2009 12:49:25 PM
_____________________
compared to what? cite your source for the thinking people. parrots don’t pay no never mind.

Posted by: gus amaral | July 28, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm

The life expectancy argument is a joke…we are one of the most obese nations in the world and our murder rate is also much higher than the countries we are being compared to.

Posted by: Curt | July 28, 2009, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm

Dumb Dems shooting themselves in the foot again and the Repubs love it!

Posted by: Ron | July 28, 2009, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm

All the countries the libbies claim have all this wonderful healthcare are less than 1/2 the size of population.
Most are well under 100 million. We have more people with cancer in this country than the total population of Sweden!
Comparisons to other countries and how they handle costs are so far off base its beyond insane!
How big is the baby boom population in Sweden, England, France or Canada? How are those countries preparing for the big boom in end of life care? Added together those 4 countries total to just over HALF of our population.

Posted by: Mike_C | July 28, 2009, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm

NO_ONE in Congress or Senate should VOTE on this legislation (or any other bill) UNTIL they have READ and UNDERSTAND every single page and every single ammendment. They were sent to D.C. to represent the people of their states, not special interest groups or lobbyists. It is time for them to vote as their constituants want, or time to get them out of office. I still have a hard time believeing that ANYONE would vote for Nancy Pelosi. Geeze……

Posted by: tellmeitisntso | July 28, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm

tort reform and illeagal alliens…thats the ticket and the fix to the system. we can take care of the real needy. the rest should put their hands back in their pockets.

Posted by: catman | July 28, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm

I am tired of Obama trying to play surgeon general and his lame-duck ‘examples’ of how un-needed healthcare costs can be lowered such as he was explaining to the AARP in his speech today. Lets face it his plan would hurt senior citizens and they would get the worst of the healthcare coverage because of their age under his plan. Who here would not any expense to help out a loved one with medical needs while paying for strangers and illegal immigrants healthcare? You are right illegals would get coverage but not have to pay into it. What kind of system is that?

Posted by: guesswhaturwrong | July 28, 2009, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm

IPEACH OBAMA OPUT HIM WHERE HE BELONGS IN PRISON THE HEALTH CARE HE WONTS WILL KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON AND PELOSI NEEDS THE SAME DONT NEED HEALTH CARE LIKE THEY WONT IT KILLS

Posted by: RAMBOW99 | July 28, 2009, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm

Fear that President Obama believed his press that he acquired during his campaign — BUT, HE IS NOT THE SECOND COMING!!
Someone on his staff needs to remind him of a basic American promise: THAT AMERICANS ARE PROMISED LIFE, REPEAT LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!
Some of the teachings Obama may have picked up from his left leaning profs need to be left in the classroom.
Why has he shied away from:
* TORT REFORM? (That would save billions)
* Selling health insurance across state borders? (That would cause increased competition and save billions of taxpayer dollars)
* Clean up fraud, waste, and abuse from MEDICARE & MEDICAID? (This would include ceasing the give aways of ‘scooters from the SCOOTER STORE’) Why in the world should we trust the government to administer nation wide health care when they cannot even clean up the current mess of fraud and waste??
*Why is there main cost savings centered on the elderly with their IMAC (deciding who lives and dies), and counseling on death? A growing number of Americans have living wills, but we do not need Obama and the Mrs. telling us what we should do and when we should ‘check out’.
* Why can the president and members of Congress not have the decency to at least read the laws they are attempting to cram down the throats of the citizens (i.e., President Obama’s comments on July 22, and John Conyer’s comments on July 27)? They might just learn something.
President Obama has — in my opinion — grossly overestimated his sway over America. When one assumes they have the authority to make life and death calls on their citizens they are sworn to protect, then there is a BIG PROBLEM.
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS A BIG PROBLEM!!

Posted by: PappyHappy | July 28, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm

so all this for 46mil under insured people. Keep in mind that it is beleived (by the DNC non the less) that there are 20mil illegal aliens in the US at any given time. Per a study in 2005 at least 10mil either lie or do not understand their current state of medical coverage when they state they are underinsured. So we are down to 16mil. How many of these are people who choose to pay for insurance for whatever reason (rich, self employed, etc…) lets say half fall within this category. so now we are going to increase our taxes by aprox 5% if you beleive what you hear, all for 2.4% of the population. Is that really necessary. We can’t come up with something better, less expensive. This has been a problem for decades, but now it is an emergency and we have to do it NOW!? Really? We can’t take a little time to find a better solution?

Posted by: Chris | July 29, 2009, 2:42 am 2:42 am

Wow healthcare and drug companies (that the government wants to take over) have stock in cigarette companies (that kill millions) over $1 Billion dollars each or more? Wow! Big surprise. Meanwhile marjiuana (that kills no one) is illegal and the government makes money off busting people. Cigarettes are 100% legal and taxed I might add (even though they kill). Didnt Obama just have the chance to make cigs illegal and instead signed legislation to allow cigarette companies to do business as usual as long as they dont put up billboards near schools (yeah that will help people quit smoking). These are the people you want in charge of your familys healthcare??? Holy macaroni!!!

Posted by: guesswhaturwrong | July 29, 2009, 3:06 am 3:06 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.