Share

Analysis: Liberals Prod Obama on Their Health Bill

by: Charles Babington  |  The Associated Press

photo
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) at a health care reform rally in Washington, DC, Thursday. (Photo: Jacquelyn Martin / AP)

    Washington - Presidents quickly learn that legislative showdowns on tough issues, such as overhauling the nation's health care system, must be dealt with eventually. Some liberal Democrats worry that President Barack Obama may be waiting too long to face down Republicans on one of the issue's knottiest questions.

    Obama says he supports a government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers, a proposal that is popular with many Americans, especially Democrats. But he is standing by as a watered-down, bipartisan version appears likely to be included in a Senate package.

    The president's allies hope it can be strengthened later, or at least accepted by liberals who want a tougher measure. Compromise is essential to every tough political battle, they say, and Obama may prove wise by keeping his options open in a health care debate certain to last for months.>!--break-->

    Frustrated liberal activists, however, point to polls showing strong public support for a government-run option that is more robust than the one apparently favored by the Senate Finance Committee. They ask why Democrats, who control the House, Senate and White House, are pushing a version backed by many Republicans.

    White House aides say Obama wants to avoid issuing nonnegotiable demands early in the legislative process. He feels President Bill Clinton made such a mistake in a failed 1993 bid to revamp the health care system. Obama has made clear that he supports a bona fide public option for health insurance, which critics say is missing from the Senate Finance package, at least for now.

    But Obama "wants comprehensive health reform even more," said former Sen. Tom Daschle, who has advised the administration on health care. "He will do all he can to get a public option," Daschle said, "but at the end of the day, the only thing nonnegotiable is success."

    Some Democrats, however, feel Obama has over-learned the lessons of 1993 and is bending over too far to attract GOP support in the Senate. Unless he and Congressional Democratic leaders agree to strengthen the public insurance provision later in the legislative process, they say, he may regret his hands-off approach.

    "No one in this building wants health care reform as much as we do," California Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters in the Capitol this week. However, she said, if a bill "does not include a real and robust public option that lives up to our criteria, then we will fight it with everything that we have."

    The legislative focus is on the 100-member Senate, where the rules make it difficult to pass contested bills without 60 votes; there are 57 Democrats, plus two independents who usually vote with Democrats. The House is moving a Democratic-crafted bill virtually certain to include a publicly run health insurance provider with the clout to compete with private insurers.

    In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is determined to win some Republican support for a far-reaching health care bill, which eventually must be reconciled with the House version to become law. GOP members oppose a public option similar to the House's plan, saying it would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business.

    Many Democrats dispute that claim, but Baucus is leaning toward a compromise version involving nonprofit cooperatives. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance.

    Proposed by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the co-ops would receive federal startup money, but then would operate independently of the government. They would have to maintain the same financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

    With the administration declining to publicly criticize the co-op proposal, other Democrats have stepped in.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York says the co-ops would lack sufficient startup funding, and they would be too decentralized to bargain for the best values for insurance buyers nationwide. An acceptable public option must have a presidentially appointed board to make rules without interference from the insurance industry, he says.

    "Right now, this co-op idea doesn't come close to satisfying anyone who wants a public plan," Schumer said this week.

    In an interview Thursday, he said Baucus was weighing his request to bulk up Conrad's proposal.

    If that fails, critics of the co-op compromise will have other chances to change it, and Obama can weigh in if he likes. Senators could amend the Finance Committee bill on the chamber floor. House-Senate negotiators could rework the provisions. Or Senate Democrats could use a strong-arm measure, called reconciliation, to pass a version with little or no GOP support.

    All those options carry political risks and uncertainty.

    Obama repeatedly promotes a public insurance option that sounds similar to the robust program the House wants.

    "The public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies," he said in a news conference Tuesday. But he said he would draw no "lines in the sand," leaving proponents to wonder whether he might eventually drop the public program in exchange for something else.

    Some proponents of revamping health care hope a modified public option will win support from doctors, hospitals and makers of medical devices and drugs, which would leave insurance companies as the main opponents. The insurers' cause was hurt this week when congressional investigators said two-thirds of the industry used a faulty database that overcharged patients for seeing doctors outside their insurance network, costing Americans billions of dollars in inflated medical bills.

    The investigation was headed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. He is among those who will press Obama to back a potent government-run health insurance program.

    "Health care reform cannot succeed without a strong public plan option that works for the American people," Rockefeller's office said this week.

    -------

    Charles Babington covers the White House for The Associated Press.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The majority of Americans

The majority of Americans want healthcare reform that includes a public plan. The fact that Liberals are advocating for a public option does not make the legislation "their" bill. Nor does the existence of a need for healthcare reform make doing something about it a progressive or liberal cause. Most Americans think reform is due. The likely compromises ahead will leave little room for reform as Congress is owned by health insurers, hospitals and drug companies. If progressives would agree to vote as a block, they could veto any bill that does not include a public plan that is nationwide, starts this year and is funded and controlled by the Federal government. They should have started out advocating for a single payer plan similar to universal health care plans in Europe. Now, when they go to bargain, they'll have to sacrifice the public plan instead. They can get a bill, but it will be worthless. To those of us who are watching, it appears that the House has done its job of creating an okay bill and that the Senate has already sold out to the special interests.

Democracy = Majority

Democracy = Majority rules. The majority of American citizens want a government, one payer system available to all citizens. The President promised the same health care plan as that given to the Congress. The rich can continue to pay for independent insurance to guarantee their expensive medical care, this will be a high end, low volume clientele for the insurance industry. The poor cannot afford to wait another generation for health care. The middle class is fast disappearing into the working poor. The people going into medical bankruptcy because of terminal or critical care issues need a government run health care system that guarantees health care for ALL Americans, not just the wealthy, the upper middle class, the Congress and the military.

Memo to Congress: Americans

Memo to Congress: Americans DON'T CARE if health insurers go out of business. The cost of health care is killing US competitiveness and is killing the middle class in this country.

I live in Massachusetts

I live in Massachusetts which mandates you buy health insurance. Senators are on record wishing to use this state as a model for insurance. Following is data from a Massachusetts state website. A 50 y.o. couple earning just $43,740 GROSS is mandated, under threat of fines and criminal charge of tax evasion for not paying such fines, to purchase a $15,954 to $23,763 policy for coverage similar to peers in all modern industrialized nations. It is also somewhat comparable to that which we buy for our political leaders. As Senator Kennedy might say we are America and deserve the best so naturally the other Massachusetts policies with huge deductibles wouldn’t apply to citizens of the wealthiest nation in the world. This yearly cost is nearly 50%+- of disposable income. Everyone reading this would agree this is unconscionable. Simply put a Ma. zip code 01201 and you can verify these numbers here : http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/menuitem.55b6e23ac6627f40dbef6f47d7468a0c/ Reasons for this cost are to be found in insurers 31% profit and bureaucratic waste across 1500 individual companies and their huge burden on hospitals and doctors office and billing staffs. Under current senate plans we will be forced to fund this waste . Single payer will eliminate this waste and is estimated to bring costs for us down to well under $6000 for this example. Verify savings here: http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Costs_and_Savings There’s just too much money at stake, our money, and our money has been spoken for by insurers giving millions in bipartisan bribes to political leaders to defeat single payer.Big insurance hopes to do to the nation what they've done to Massachusetts residents. If they succeed, it will be the single greatest redistribution of citizenry cash into private industry pockets ever fashioned by our elected officials. Either we work together to demand sensible single payer or spend a large part of every year working for insurance companies.

All great comments, and you

All great comments, and you are all absolutely right. The natural progression, whether we get real health care reform or not, is going to have to be CAMPAIGN FINANCE and LOBBYING REFORM at the very top of our list of "can't wait any longer". The change we thought we were actually going to see has not materialized. And the main culprit has been industry lobbying in every case. Until we march in the streets to get the money out of politics, once and for all, nothing - NOTHING - will change. And democracy will be just a word we use to justify occupations.

WOW Obama! First you ditch

WOW Obama! First you ditch single payer, now you ditch any reform whatsoever and all for what you call "success".... we knew you were the most ambitious man in the country when you became president, but damn.