Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

Congressional Dems Turn Backs on Obama and Clinton Health Plans

By Manu Raju, The Hill. Posted May 19, 2008.


Some senior Democrats are working to lower the public's expectations on health care reform.
Advertisement

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

It is still seven months before Election Day, but already senior Democrats are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue.

In the back of their minds is the damage done to President Bush's second term by his failed attempts to change the nation's Social Security policy.

For some senators, the promises made by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) outside of Washington may not match the political reality on Capitol Hill.

"We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates' healthcare plans. "What they are doing is ... laying out their ambitions."

The Democratic candidates say their plans would cover the 47 million uninsured people living in the United States, except for millions of illegal immigrants. Their push for universal healthcare has sparked sharp exchanges over who would do more to cover the uninsured. A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 58 percent of Americans say healthcare costs are an "important" part of their economic concerns.

But veterans on Capitol Hill say that getting a sprawling piece of legislation requires broad compromise from both parties and outside groups.

Should the majority party rush the issue through, the minority may hunker down -- as was the case with Bush's Social Security proposal and President Bill Clinton's attempt at addressing healthcare policy.

If supporters wait too long, however, it could fall victim to the political considerations of the next election cycle.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is "not sure we have the big plan on healthcare."

"Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan," Schumer said.

Schumer said he would focus "on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan."

Making sweeping changes to healthcare issues often takes several Congresses to work through. For instance, a bill to create a drug benefit under Medicare passed the House in 2000 and 2002, but didn't land on Bush's desk until late 2003.

"You don't want to rush and do something and do it incorrectly," said former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), who helped negotiate the Medicare law.

Congressional Democrats have set smaller goals on healthcare next year, like an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has been repeatedly vetoed by President Bush. But passing broader proposals aimed at insuring greater numbers will more than likely have to wait, they say.

Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said "the money is not necessarily there right now" to enact the plans and said calls to end the war in Iraq might consume Washington's attention. The healthcare proposals are a "really good start," he said, but any promises that the next Congress would enact the healthcare plans "at even the beginning of next year to mid-next year would really be political talk at this point.

"I hear on the campaign trail, 'This is what I'm going to do,' as if there is not a Congress here with feelings and experience on this issue," Meek said. "I think it's important that everyone takes that into consideration and that this is not a kingdom, this is a democracy."

Under both candidates' plans, people could purchase health insurance from either the government or private companies, and lower-income individuals would be eligible for subsidies to pay for coverage.

Companies also would not be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

The main difference is that Clinton's plan includes a mandate for people to purchase insurance, while Obama would only require parents to purchase coverage for their children.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee, proposes to give tax breaks of up to $5,000 per family for insurance even if it does not come through an employer. But he has not emphasized the issue to the same degree as Clinton or Obama.

Because the issue is so salient for Democrats, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter, made the case that voters would be giving them a mandate to enact healthcare reform if either Democrat wins in November.

Clinton told an Associated Press annual meeting this month that in her first 100 days, she would ask Congress to send her bills to expand stem cell research and children's healthcare. Obama has made similar promises, highlighting healthcare for all Americans as one of his biggest priorities should he take the White House.

The campaigns did not respond to inquiries seeking further comment.

Senate Finance panel Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said the groundwork is already being laid through hearings, but projected an uphill battle ahead.

"If they try to solve all the problems, it's going to be difficult," Baucus said.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: democrats, health care reform, health care, health

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
misnomer
Posted by: rabiabidabi on May 19, 2008 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish only that the discussion of health care in the USA would take on an honest tone. No one is offering National health care. The Dem proposals call for mandatory health insurance, purchased by taxpayers who are already subsidizing the insurance companies. The Repug's are saying what they always say, save more money in case you get sick.

Both are sell outs to the insurance industry, ala mandatory auto insurance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

time to smell the coffee
Posted by: lb on May 19, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2006 was a warning. 2008 will be a tsunami. But if ALL of our elected officials, including the Democrats, don't start paying attention to the voters, their days in office will be numbered. The majority of the electorate wants and desperately NEEDS universal, single payor healthcare. Find the money. Start by looking at the defense budget.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: time to smell the coffee Posted by: 2cynical
Who's in Charge?
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 19, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly Big Pharma and the healthcare industry are seeing their large campaign contributions and many lobbyists pay off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who ever thought we'd beat the Insuracne lobby
Posted by: carbon-based on May 19, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone with enough sense could see that promises made by Hillary or Obama were unrealistic - and they know it too - I just wonder if they know we know! The insurance lobby would not let the public off the hook!

As a moderate conservative jumping ship to Obama I would hope that my medical insurance premium (self employed) would stay south of $15,000 per year for a bad HMO. No chance, it'll probably go up so I can pay for others that will not pay the crazy rates I do!

Is there anyone with enough of what it takes to get the healthcare crises under control!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unevenly
Posted by: unevenly on May 19, 2008 10:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot understand why the dems don't pass a single payer universal coverage for kids. Successful models for the system at the state level exist, and it would be far cheaper than expanding the piecemeal systems that exist now.

I agree with senior dems on it being a bad idea to try to pass universal coverage soon. A universal coverage bill passed in the next two years will be full of 'bribes' to groups like the health insurance industry, making it a bad bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT WORKS LIKE A MILITARY CONTRACT. MEDICARE AND /OR THE HEALTH INSURANCE
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 19, 2008 10:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
industry pays what it costs and your copay is the plus. The more it costs the bigger the cut that the insurance industry gets. They say that they are fighting increased costs, but they are really just cutting your medical care and keeping the difference.

The only real solution to this is to build a series of federally owned hospitals like the VA system. Care in the VA system is sometimes spotty, but those VA hospitals that are staffed by a nearby medical school are sometimes extraordinary. I would use as cases in point West Los Angeles VA with access to UCLA medical school or Redlands VA with access to Loma Linda University Medical School.

The Kaiser Hospitals are a case in point. It is doable. It is doable at a good price. Henry Kaiser didn't set out to build the Kaiser Hospitals because they were more expensive. He set them up because it was cheaper on Henry Kaiser. We need Kaiser Plan hospitals because it will be cheaper on us.

The 'we can't afford it' argument doesn't hold water. It only holds water if the goal is to make the health care system richer. In that case we can't afford it.

It may mean removing all incumbents every election for years to come. It does mean that it can't be done over night. I, like others, fear that they will just do it like car insurance. They wiil force you to buy it even if it breaks you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE HAVE LET GOVERNMENT BECOME THE ENFORCEMENT ARM
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 19, 2008 10:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of the insurance companies. It is such a racket that Al Capone could have only dreamed of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

onecarenowla
Posted by: onecarenowla on May 19, 2008 11:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me, Congress? 70% of U.S.VOTERS and 60% of physicians WANT a universal, single-payer, publicly funded health care system like the Medicare plan for all already proposed in Cong. John Conyer's HR 696 legislation.

HR 676 and California's SB 840 (onecarenow.org) eliminates the for-profit insurance companies. Instead of wasting 30% of every health care dollar, these plans, like Medicare take less than 5% for administration.

Result? There's plenty of money for full care, for all, for life, for LESS.

The PEOPLE are way ahead of the politicians (and many Unions) to push this year for true health care reform.

Don't believe the "insider bull" being fed by the 1000 Washington health care LOBBYISTS. The insurance companies and drug companies know single payer is coming to get them. This yeer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single-payer
Posted by: 2cynical on May 20, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until someone stands up and points out that the profit motive of the insurance companies is the largest chunk of the runaway costs of healthcare,the people's desire for single-payer Medicare-for-Everyone will be only a GOAL,OFFERED UP IN THE BIENNIAL chase for votes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's See...
Posted by: jvaljon1 on May 22, 2008 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THAT'S why, Obama. I've been wondering why the Dems have been committing political suicide this past year, what with this "primary contest"--the first that I've ever seen in all my political life, now totaling 50-odd years--when they all along had the candidate that we were all waiting for. It was all Health Care.

I knew something bad was going to happen with Hillary. We got the Lunatic Fringe of the Right Wing, achieving the highest office in the land by nefarious means. We got a compliant, "infotainment" media to ignore all this. Now we got the "challenge" to Hillary--this newbie Barack Obama (who a year ago nobody had ever heard of) by her own party, which her husband along with her, helped save from obscurity back in 1992!

It was of course, Big Pharma. They are the ones directly impacted by any kind of healthcare reform. They even got it into Medicare that there is to be NO DICKERING WITH THEM ON PRICES--in which the American People suffer as the rest of the world, does not; the rest of the world, taking good care to NEGOTIATE with our very own Big Pharma BEFORE they sign on the dotted line.

OK. Now I know why we'll never recover. Hillary was to be the recovery as she and Bill were in '92--and ever since 2000, the Repubs and their financiers--Big Pharma, Big Oil, just plain Big--have worked tirelessly to make it NOT happen. Now it seems as if they have succeeded. Say Hello to President McCain in the Fall, people. Obama has been propped up and financed to destroy the one person who could have brought the Republicans to their knees. Once he's done that, it'll be Bye Bye Bammie, go back to Chicago and count your Money.

The rest of my time from now on, will be spent obtaining my passport, because once McCain wins, this country won't be worth living in. We were just hanging on. Most of my old friends, have already left...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]