On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry -- whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.
So I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance."
(Source: Whitehouse.gov)
I am, well, disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I wasn't open-minded to DT's perspective that the President is unable to pick a side and make some on the other side unhappy, but I think it finally hit me today when the President walked into a room filled with Doctors, nurses and physician assistants (nice touch, by the way) and stated the obvious: that the American people should have control over their healthcare. The only real piece of news was that that he has asked Democratic leadership in Congress to schedule a vote within the next three weeks.
The statement lasted about 20 minutes, in which he vaguely outlined the tax breaks for the middle class so insurance would more profitable for them (although, essentially, the government would be subsidizing their premiums and the insurance companies will still make bank).
Quite frankly, other than being disappointed, I don't know what to think of this whole situation anymore. Part of me says that incrementalism is necessary in any major reform, that we have to take steps to fix the healthcare crisis. But if so, how many steps do we take? And how many how much more can we afford to spend?
I'm open to ideas.
I don't even think incremental changes are possible with the current state of politics.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats and Republicans are both held down by the shackles of special interests, which restrict any sort of change in policy from materializing.
Both parties are more interested in making sure the other party can't succeed rather than addressing issues facing society, which makes any form of change from happening.
It's really sad, but money talks. Politicians can't afford to deviate too much from the status quo or else run the risk of their political careers becoming seriously jeopardized from the backlash of special interestes that own them.
It is sad, and I would have to add my voice of disappointment to Abhay's and Joe's lamentations about the prospect of real HCR. I'll save my own perspective on the reasons for my pessimism for a different post, but let me use this comment to counter the current Republican outcry over the use of "parliamentary tricks" -- i.e., budget reconciliation voting rules -- in passing health care legislation. What follows is a brief history of the use of reconciliation, often under Republican leadership, to pass or amend health care policy. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted line is again appropriate here: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts."
ReplyDeleteThe brief overview is available from the website for Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS, which tonight featured a discussion on the wisdom of going forward with the Senate bill as is by having the House pass it and then hope that reconciliation can be used to "iron out" the big differences between the House's preferred version and the Senate version. I'll weigh in on that matter in a separate post. But here's the info on the "parliamentary trick" known as reconciliation and its frequent use in passing health care measures:
A History Of Reconciliation
For 30 years, major changes to health care laws have passed via the budget reconciliation process. Here are a few examples:
1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs
1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care
1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program
1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care
1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid
1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children
1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare
1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP
2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid
I can't remember if it was The Daily Show or Rachel Maddow, but they found video footage of some Republican Senators who now oppose reconciliaion as an underhanded tactic, but who defended it when they did it during the Bush Administration. It's so blatant, just competely contradicting themselves.
ReplyDeleteAbhay's original post was written a little while ago, and it seems like Obama has gotten more fiery in his rhetoric and more demanding of a vote in the last few days. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks, I feel like it's a make or break time for health care reform.