Tweet
Yesterday, Republican leaders finally confirmed that they weren’t going to bring a health care bill to the President’s summit tomorrow. Why? Because they don’t actually want to reform health care (emphasis added):
The Senate GOP leadership is brushing off Dan Pfeiffer’s demand this morning that Republicans clarify whether they’ll produce a bill in advance of the summit, and won’t put forth a “comprehensive proposal,” aides say.
This morning on the White House blog, Pfeiffer challenged GOP leaders to say whether they’d be bringing a bill to the summit. “The Senate Republicans have yet to post any kind of plan,” Pfeiffer wrote, adding that “we continue to await word from them.”
Asked for comment, a senior Senate GOP aide emailed:
We fundamentally disagree with a comprehensive proposal to reform health care. We think a step by step approach on areas where we agree is the best path forward. We will not be posting a comprehensive alternative to commence a staring contest.
Of course, health care advocates have known this all along. Republicans have no solutions to the crisis in our health care system because they don’t view it as a system in crisis.
However, the position that health care in this country doesn’t need fundamental reform is a dangerous position to take. Never mind that every day we go without reform, 6,821 more people lose their health insurance [pdf], 2,548 more people file for bankruptcy because they got sick, and 60 more people die [pdf] because they don’t have the coverage they need. Declaring that as a party Republicans "fundamentally disagree with a comprehensive proposal to reform health care" is radically out of step with the American people.
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll is only the latest in a series showing the elements of health reform are popular:
Other parts of reform are really popular too, like the public option.
And majorities want comprehensive health reform passed:
And even more will be disappointed or angry if reform doesn’t pass:
If Republicans think going with nothing is going to win them broad support, they haven’t been reading their polling.
Democrats need to work to make sure the reform that passes works for everyone in America and has the popular elements in it – they must pass health care that works for us and pass it now. Today, we’re helping to put in 1 million message to Congress to send them that message, and Melanie’s March is arriving in DC to a huge rally with Senators attending the summit, so we’ll get to tell that message to these Senators in person.
Getting health reform done right is more than good policy for the country, it’s popular, too. And it will show America that Democrats won’t accept the party of NO’s strategy.
(also posted at the NOW! blog)
I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now
19 Comments
Just listened to VA. Foxx whining that they really DO want health care reform, but the Dems wouldn’t let them play… I mean participate in the bill drafting. They don’t even pretend to be playing this straight.
Republicans agenda. Block, divert, confuse, obstruct.
If it is not clear by now to the American people who they are working for they never will get it.
Do we know how much the Insurance companies are spending to do the same?
I read somewhere a while back they were spending a million a day to confuse the American public
It’s a shame that Dems don’t realize that the only way the Rethug strategy of the “Party of No” works is when it makes Democrats look weak and impotent. Once you put through a health care bill by whatever means necessary, the process will revert to making the Rethublicans look weak and ineffectual. IOW, it will take the wind out of their sails and they should race to start cooperating instead of remaining the party of no.
I actually thought the Rethugs would pick up the Health Care Reform issue the last year of the Bush administration to bump up their numbers. Really thought they would do it. But no they had the reins for many years and did nothing to help the 30-40 million uninsured get on the bus.
Screw health reform, its just a bailout to the insurance industries which will of priced themselves out of existance in the next decade. Screw the bill and the scum trying to sell it as a remedy when it does nothing but punish people too poor to afford insurance.
Medicare for All (improved)…with a robust private option.
It’s doable through reconciliation; people understand what Medicare is and how it works; they know people on it and know it works. 60% want it. HR 676 makes it more comprehensive. It saves beaucoup bucks ($400B a year, per PNHP.org), which helps the deficit problem.
HR 676 already has provisions to assist health insurance employees with training, job search, unemployment. Oh, I believe the execs do not qualify….
It’s so sad Obama took if off the table, wouldn’t permit discussion of it. Too bad the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) went along with his embargo.
Too bad for all those who have lost savings, houses, jobs, lives due to lack of health CARE.
Olympic athletes are continually being described as seeking redemption by trying to win something after they’ve lost in an event. Our Corporate Dems might try that: Redeem themselves by helping the people.
60% want a government run program like Medicare.
Medicare for All (improved)…with a robust private option. What’s not to like?
That would be a severe distortion, especially for the House bill.
All you have to do is look is look at the actions of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) on health care to witness that the only strategy the Republicans are interested in, is opposition.
He has claimed that the legislation has been too long, that the legislation is too short, that the White House wouldn’t post their plan on the web, that the White House agreed to post their plan on the web…and on and on it goes.
Couple that behavior with the Democrats’ unwillingness to pass a robust public option through reconciliation and you have a situation where the real reforms that are needed are in jeopardy of not coming to fruition. Rockefeller’s reversal on this matter speaks volumes about the normal pattern of the Dems to support populist policies when they have no chance of being passed, but “compromising” and backing away when it looks like there is a chance of passage.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this strategy will not benefit the greater population in the long run.
worse than romneycare.
Kill. This. Stinkin’. Bill. Now.
The House bill?
sadly, yes. worse than romneycare. i commented on this at the time of passage of the bill and since. for example, in marcy’s post: 21% of People in MA Still Forgo Necessary Medical Care, where i noted that this evaluation (comparing romneycare to the house bill) was confirmed to me by a knowledgable aide in my rep’s office — who hastened to add that since we already have a waiver from the hhs, we would be able to keep our own exchanges and not have to use the federal, etc. the benefit to us from the bill was the medicaid $$ (we got an extra sweet deal along the lines, i think, that nebraska did. my guess is to get our reps to vote ‘yea’).
if you want more details, let me know i’ll try and track them down for you.
p.s. this is one of the reasons that i’ve been so loud about challenging claims re the proposals. people in MA purchasing their own insurance in the individual market (as i do) don’t need to rely on bs AHIP reports, etc because we have our own experiences with the exchange, etc. and MA is probably the best case for this type of reform. if we can’t make it work, i don’t think it’s a viable approach — and that’s not just a theoretical hypothetical for us.
p.s. and i should note that i lobbied my state reps in favor of romneycare. live and learn. too bad the rest of the country and the dems in particular are not willing to learn from our experience. oh, how i wish for an evidenced based policy.
Hi Jason. You are right about the Republicans of course. And you are correct that the public wants health care reform. But what will the Democrats bring to the summit? The only real “reform” acceptable to the Administration and the Senate Democrats is mandates. There will be no health care reform that actually helps the American people coming out of Washington. The people want to see a doctor when they are sick. Well, people in hell want ice water. Maybe your town or your county can find a way to bring in some Cuban doctors and open some clinics. We need to develop ways to employ collective action closer to home. Washington is owned and operated by our corporate masters who who want us to be poor and ignorant. Our help will have to come from ourselves. We have to find ways to live without health insurance. Without access to the abomination they call the health care system.
The house bill is irrelevant. It might as well be a limerick.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this strategy will not benefit the greater population in the long run.
nailed it!
The Democrats don’t LOOK weak and incompetent, they ARE weak and incompetent. And that’s been true since the Bush v Gore appointment of Bush by the US Extreme Court. They spoke not a word nor lifted a finger in protest and that decision to roll over and play dead like the possum that lives in my back yard is what I blame for subjecting our nation to the worst administration in history (at least so far).
And to be honest, without Bush we wouldn’t have Obama who spent his entire campaign pretending to be a progressive while in fact being a foil of the Puppet Masters. In the interests of full disclosure I will admit to falling for his rhetorical talents, but by this time my feelings are that the main difference between Bush and Obama is that the latter can speak in full sentences without tripping over his shoelaces.
I’m beginning to believe that our nation has passed the tipping point that has led other countries down the road to devolution or it’s alternative revolution. We must face the fact that our government no longer works for the people, but for the Puppet Masters (corporations and their management). We must also, as a nation, devise some way of peacefully changing the status quo. If we don’t history teaches us that change WILL come, but not peacefully.
US HEALTH ECONOMISTS ASK CONGRESS TO PASS “COMPREHENSIVE” HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW…INFER RECONCILIATION IS OK WITH THEM
From NY Times…
To President Obama and Members of the House and Senate,
Our health care system is in crisis. America has higher per-capita medical spending than any other industrial democracy, Health care spending continues to increase, and is projected to reach $3.3 trillion by 2019. Health insurance premiums are rising rapidly, particularly within individual and small group markets. Meanwhile, the financial security traditionally offered by health insurance continues to erode, with rapid increases in out-of-pocket spending. Rising public health care program costs are driving large, ultimately unsustainable state and federal budget deficits. It is likely that more than 50 million Americans are now uninsured, with more losing coverage every day due to the twin challenges of deep recession and rising health care costs. Although this country has some of the best medical technology in the world, the quality and effectiveness of medical care often falls short of what every American deserves.
This week, the President put forth a proposal for finishing the job of enacting comprehensive health care reform with which Congress has struggled for the past year. Yesterday the President, House, and Senate leaders from parties spent much of the day in a nationally televised health care summit. This meeting identified areas of bipartisan agreement — many of which are already included in pending legislation. Yet the meeting also underscored the profound differences that separate the leadership of the two parties. Most notably, the President’s proposal would cover 30 million people who would otherwise remain uninsured. The Congressional Budget office reports that Republican proposals would only expand coverage to 3 million.
We commend the President’s pursuit of bipartisan solutions. Yet the summit made plain that it is now time to move decisively and quickly to enact comprehensive reform. We believe that the only workable process at this point is to use the President’s proposal to finish the job. After long debate, the House and Senate have passed two similar bills that do crucial things to improve U.S. health care. All that needs to happen, if Republicans insist on blocking final improvements, is for the House and Senate to make the required adjustments and to pass these bills by majority vote in both houses.
Given the likelihood of a filibuster, this legislation will likely require the majority-vote reconciliation process. Reconciliation has been used by both Democrats and Republicans to enact welfare reform, Reagan and Bush-era tax cuts, the state children’s health insurance programs (SCHIP), and other key legislation. Reconciliation is an appropriate and justified mechanism to secure an up-or-down vote on this critical bill.
The President’s proposal incorporates many of the best ideas proposed by Democrats and Republicans, patients, clinicians, and researchers. It combines and strengthens many elements of the House and Senate bills and repairs their deficits. It offers a strong foundation for comprehensive reform. Fully implemented, the President’s proposal would:
• Cover more than 30 million people who would otherwise go uninsured.
• Provide financial help to make coverage affordable for millions of working families.
• Strengthen competition and oversight of private insurance through insurance exchanges and increased regulation of private insurers and their rates.
• Provide unprecedented protection for Americans living with chronic illnesses and disabilities.
• Make significant investments in community health centers, prevention, and wellness.
• Increase financial support to states to finance expanded Medicaid insurance coverage.
• Eliminate the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole.”
• Eliminate objectionable provisions such as special funds for Nebraska’s Medicaid program.
• Reduce the federal budget deficit over the next ten years and beyond.
• Provide a platform to improve the quality and economy of the health care system and to slow future growth of health expenditures.
We, the signatories of this letter, come from different perspectives. Some of us are long-standing advocates of progressive causes. Some of us are nonpartisan or identify as political moderates. From these differing perspectives, we agree on one thing: After months of extensive debate, expert analysis, and the historic passage of House and Senate bills, it is time to pass a final bill. The President’s proposal provides a foundation for finishing this work — and for future steps to build on this foundation.
It may be possible, as the President suggested, to incorporate proposals put forth by the Republican leadership. This proposal already incorporates many traditional Republican ideas for health reform, such as tax credits to help middle-income Americans pay for health care, organizing markets through health insurance exchanges, and creating a regulatory structure that allows insurers to sell coverage across state lines.
Time is short, however. If Republican leaders do not promptly offer constructive proposals in the context of comprehensive legislation that has already passed both the Senate and the House, Congress must move forward. It is time to act.
(I will include signator list in next comment – it’s long)
US HEALTH ECONOMISTS WHO WANT HEALTH REFORM PASSED… NOW!
Henry Aaron, Brookings Institution
Emily Abel, UCLA
Ronald Andersen, UCLA
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Ronald Bayer, Columbia
Peter Bourne, MD
Richard Brown, UCLA
Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU
Deborah Burnett, University of Chicago
Paul Cleary, Yale University
David Cutler, Harvard University
Linda Degutis, Yale University
Judith Feder, Georgetown University
Eric Feldman, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Flay, Oregon State University
Lawrence Gostin, Johns Hopkins University
David Grande, University of Pennsylvania
Tim Greaney, Saint Louis University
Colleen Grogan, University of Chicago
Jonathan Gruber, MIT
Jacob Hacker, Yale University
Mark Hall, Wake Forest University
Helen Halpin, University of California, Berkeley
Bradley Herring, Johns Hopkins University
Diana W. Hilberman, UCLA
Jim House, University of Michigan
Jill Horwitz, University of Michigan
John Jacobi, Seton Hall University
Peter Jacobson, University of Michigan
Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee University
Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University
Rosalie A. Kane, University of Minnesota
George Kaplan, University of Michigan
Jerome Karabel, University of California, Berkeley
Eleanor Kinney, Indiana University-Indianapolis
Mark Kleiman, UCLA
Gerald Kominski, UCLA
Karl Kronebusch, Baruch College, City University of New York
Paula Lantz, University of Michigan
Miriam Laugesen, Columbia University
Robert Leflar, University of Arkansas
Arleen A. Leibowitz. UCLA
Carol Mangione, UCLA
Jerry Mashaw, Yale University
Michael Millenson, Northwestern
Jack Needleman, UCLA
Len Nichols, George Mason University
Wendy Mariner, Boston University
Theodore Marmor, Yale University
Jonathan Oberlander, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Alexander Ortega, UCLA
David Orentlicher, Indiana University-Indianapolis
Kevin Outterson, Boston University
Frank A. Pasquale, Seton Hall University
Mark Peterson, UCLA
Philip Pizzo, Stanford University
Harold Pollack, University of Chicago
Daniel Polsky, University of Pennsylvania
Ninez Ponce, UCLA
Victor Rodwin, NYU
Sara Rosenbaum, George Washington University
Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University
Lainie Friedman Ross, University of Chicago
William Sage, University of Texas
Steven Shortell, University of California, Berkeley
Theda Skocpol, Harvard University
Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins University
Katherine Swartz, Harvard University
Donald H. Taylor, Jr., Duke University
William Terry, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
James Tulsky, Duke University
Alexander Wagenaar, University of Florida
Rachel Werner, University of Pennsylvania
Celia Wcislo, SEIU
Elizabeth Yano, UCLA
Fred Zimmerman, UCLA