Grassley tells constituent: If you want good health insurance, ‘go work for the government.’
Grassley tells constituent: If you want good health insurance, ‘go work for the government.’
During a townhall in Waukon, IA Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was asked by a constituent of his: “Why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so better than my insurance?” When Grassley struggled to explain the details of his own health care plan, the elderly man followed up, “Okay, so how come I can’t have the same thing you have?” Grassley said, “You can. Just go work for the federal government.” Watch it:
Grassley has been at the forefront of railing against Obama’s health care plan, declaring, “We need to make sure that there’s no public option.” As Igor Volsky notes, there is an irony in government workers like Grassley complaining about “government-sponsored health care.” If Grassley wants to stand on principle, he could abandon his government-sponsored insurance and try his luck in the individual health insurance market.
- Comments
- 101
DeMint Inadvertently Concedes That Public Health Insurance Option Won’t Take Over The Market
DeMint Inadvertently Concedes That Public Health Insurance Option Won’t Take Over The Market
A leading right-wing argument against offering a public health insurance option as part of any health reform initiative is that such a plan would drive private health insurance companies out of the market. The health insurance lobby group AHIP called a public option “potentially lethal” to their industry. Similarly, Republican Conference Chairman Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said in May that adding a public plan would be akin to asking mice to compete against an elephant. “There wouldn’t be any mice left after a while,” he insisted.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) recently used this talking point himself in arguing against a public option for the National Review. Yesterday, however, DeMint appeared to inadvertently offer an example that demonstrates that the notion that the public plan would drive out competition is false. On Bill Bennett’s radio show, DeMint called blocking health care reform the top Republican priority, arguing that of all the items on President Obama’s legislative agenda, it would be the hardest to reverse. To support his point, he offered “government schools” — public education — as an example. “You can never, with another piece of legislation, change it,” DeMint said:
DEMINT: I think the biggest issue is health care. I think if they succeed in a government take over of health care the situation may be irreversible. It will be like government schools. I mean you can never just, with another piece of legislation, change it.
Listen here:
DeMint’s example of education is instructive, not because it is hard to repeal, but because it’s a prime example of successful public-private competition. Indeed, while state and local governments own and run the public education system — to a much greater extent than either Obama or members of Congress are suggesting with a public health insurance option — private schools are competing against the government and thriving in this country. Further, such competition actually improves outcomes. As the conservative Hoover Institution found, competition between public and private schools “improves achievement for both public and private school students and decreases the amount spent per pupil.”
As Joseph Hacker explains, such public-private competition works well not just in education, but in many other sectors of the U.S. economy:
In many areas of American commerce, private and government programs comfortably co-exist. FHA insured loans and non-FHA loans, Social Security and private pensions, public and private universities–all have long thrived side by side. Each side of the divide has strengths and weaknesses, but in every case the public sector is providing something the private sector cannot: A backup that’s there if and when you need it; a benchmark for private providers; and a backstop to make sure costs don’t spin out of control.
Igor Volsky recently explained the actual impact of having a competing public plan, writing, “In an environment where private plans are forced to compete with a new efficient public program, inefficient, over-bloated insurers will go out of business, but private plans with good networks of providers or better services will continue attracting new enrollees.” Jonathan Cohn has more on the effects of public-private competition.
New Budget Estimate Of Public Plan Proves It Lowers Cost And Covers More Americans
New Budget Estimate Of Public Plan Proves It Lowers Cost And Covers More Americans
A couple of weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary score of the health care legislation under consideration in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill was estimated to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, while reducing the number of uninsured by “only” one-third. As many informed bloggers noted at the time, the cost estimate was incomplete because the legislation that the CBO reviewed did not contain language about a public health insurance plan or an employer mandate.
Nevertheless, Republicans seized on the opportunity to engage in merciless political attacks, citing the incomplete CBO score as proof that health care reform is not worth doing:
John McCain: “[The CBO estimate] should be a wake up call for all of us to scrap the current bill and start over in a true bipartisan fashion.”
John Boehner: “[T]he public option would cost over $1 trillion, and would cause 23 million Americans to lose their private health care coverage.”
Lindsey Graham: “The CBO estimates were a death blow to a government run health care plan.”
The HELP Committee has since added language for a public plan option to its legislation, as well as an employer mandate provision. The AP reports the new results:
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. [...]
The [employer mandate] provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.
In other words, the addition of the public plan dramatically reduced the overall cost of the bill and ensured coverage of almost all Americans. So what excuses will McCain, Boehner, Graham, and other Republicans offer now? Their attacks were not only found to be baseless, but their concerns about the costs and coverage have also been addressed.
Gingrich On Private Health Insurance Companies: ‘They Have It Done Well’
Gingrich On Private Health Insurance Companies: ‘They Have It Done Well’
Newt Gingrich, one of the de facto leaders of the Republican Party, gave an interview to ABC Medical editor Dr. Timothy Johnson last week to discuss health care reform. Gingrich predictably went into scare-mongering mode, making arguments against measures that aren’t even part of the debate. He said the U.S. should not adopt a “single national health system” such as in Canada or the UK. “If I have to choose between my doctor and a government bureaucrat, I have zero doubt which one I want,” he said. Of course, no such choice is being offered.
But Gingrich also touted the success of private health insurers. When Johnson noted that it is insurance companies that are coming between patients and needed care, Gingrich claimed, “If you don’t like your current insurance company, you can change insurance companies.” He later argued that private insurers have done “well”:
GINGRICH: They have it done well. And the fact is, overall, 71 percent of Americans are relatively satisfied with the health insurance.
JOHNSON: But we have 46 million uninsured.
GINGRICH: Right. And we have — you know, that means you also have 260 million insured.
Perhaps Gingrich hasn’t been paying attention to how private insurance companies have been doing it. They continually deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and drop coverage for many who have insurance (and have paid monthly premiums) when they become ill. In fact, just this month, the CEOs of the nation’s top three health insurers told a House committee that they would continue the practice of canceling medical coverage for sick policy holders, a controversial measure called “rescission.”
Moreover, many of those who have health insurance really aren’t “insured” from the financial burdens of rising health care costs. A national study released this year found that while medical debt contributed to 62 percent of the bankruptcies in 2007, 78 percent of those bankruptcy filers had health insurance but “still were overwhelmed by their medical debt.”
Perhaps because he hasn’t had to shop around for health insurance for quite a while, Gingrich doesn’t know that it’s not that easy to just “change insurance companies” if you’re unhappy with your current provider. Aside from the fact that insurer consolidation has resulted in limited choice and higher profits for insurers, those seeking insurance on the individual market face higher costs, as the Commonwealth Fund has noted:
Insurance in the individual market is often impossible to obtain or unaffordable. Nearly nine of 10 people who explored obtaining coverage through the individual market never bought a plan, citing difficulties finding affordable coverage or being turned down.
If private insurance companies have “done well” and a public plan is no option, how does Gingrich plan to reform health care?
Howard Dean Joins With TP’s Igor Volsky And Faiz Shakir To Author Book On Health Care Reform
Howard Dean Joins With TP’s Igor Volsky And Faiz Shakir To Author Book On Health Care Reform
In recent months, Howard Dean — the former physician, Governor of Vermont, and DNC Chairman — has been passionately advocating for health care reform that contains a public health insurance option. Now, he’s written a book fleshing out his detailed ideas for comprehensive progressive health care reform. And I, along with Wonk Room health care blogger Igor Volsky, are honored to be his co-authors.
The book — which is being released in paperback today — is titled “Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Health Care Reform.” (If it’s not available in your local bookstore, you can purchase a copy online here.)
The book is being released in the midst of a heated policy debate over health care reform. A number of so-called “moderate” Democratic senators — including Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Joe Lieberman, and others — have indicated they are opposing President Obama’s efforts to include a public plan. Our book is part of an effort to ensure that Congress and the Obama administration do not abandon core principles that the vast majority of the public supports. As we write in the book:
Americans need real healthcare reform, not just insurance reform, and nobody should mistake the two. If we only get reform that requires insurance companies to provide coverage to everyone who applies, charge everyone the same premiums, and end their predatory practices, that would be great insurance reform. But that is not healthcare reform.
Igor and I recently sat down with Gov. Dean to discuss our book. Gov. Dean taped this message specifically for the ThinkProgress community. Take a look:
Also, Gov. Dean recently discussed the book on The Colbert Report. Watch it here.
Wal-Mart embraces the employer mandate.
Wal-Mart embraces the employer mandate.
Today, Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the country wrote a letter (along with the Center for American Progress and SEIU) to the Obama administration expressing its support for the employer mandate:
We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage, but any alternative to an employer mandate should not create barriers to hiring entry level employees….Support for a mandate also requires the strongest possible commitment to rein in health care costs.
Read the full letter HERE.
As the Hill’s Jeffery Young observes, “The decision by Wal-Mart to break away from the Chamber and its ilk marks the first visible crack in the business coalition on healthcare reform.” Indeed, Wal-Mart’s embrace of the employer mandate enhances the existing system of employer-based coverage, levels the playing field between employers and preserves the employer contribution that will help finance health care reform. The Wonk Room has much more here.
Sebelius Indicates Willingness To Compromise On Public Plan, Offers Support For Co-Op Proposal
Sebelius Indicates Willingness To Compromise On Public Plan, Offers Support For Co-Op Proposal
In an emailed statement to Bloomberg News, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she’s open to the idea of dropping a public health insurance option in favor of a medical-insurance cooperative. “You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan,” Sebelius said.
The leading co-op proposal in the Senate, offered by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), does not share the attributes of a public plan. Instead, Conrad’s proposal would create multiple state or regional non-profits as a competitor to the private insurance market. As Howard Dean has said of this plan: “The co-ops are too small to compete with the big, private insurance companies. They will kill the co-ops completely by undercutting them, using their financial clout to do it.”
Bloomberg’s Al Hunt asked Sebelius, “[If] you’re willing to compromise on your notion of a public plan…what’s non-negotiable?” Sebelius responded that the final bill has to “have a comprehensive approach that lowers costs. That’s non-negotiable.” She added reform also “needs to provide coverage for everyone.” Watch it:
This isn’t the time to compromise on core health care reform principles. As CAP fellow Ruy Teixeira notes, “Right now support is running high for the public option.”
Matt Yglesias adds that the public option is uniquely important because, if implement, it is likely “become an enduring feature of the landscape that’s unlikely to vanish.” While other progressive health insurance reforms can be enacted in the future, Yglesias argues, “for the public option, it’s probably now or never.”
Romney: Republicans ‘Believe In Allowing People To Have Choice In Their Health Care’ — Except A Public Option
Romney: Republicans ‘Believe In Allowing People To Have Choice In Their Health Care’ — Except A Public Option
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney bristled at criticisms that Republicans don’t have any ideas. “We have a health care plan. … We believe in allowing people to have choice in their health care,” he said.
However, despite this belief in “choice,” a few minutes later Romney said that allowing people to choose a public option is out of the question:
One state in America, my state, was able to put into place a plan that got everybody health insurance. And it did not require a public government insurance company. That’s the last thing America needs. You know exactly what it is.
President Obama, when he was campaigning, said he wanted a single-payer system. That’s what it would lead to. He would subsidize this over time. It would become larger and larger, drive the private options out of the health care industry.
Watch it:
Obama is not trying to create a single-payer system. In 2003, Obama did say, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program.” However, he admitted that such a system was unrealistic in the United States. Since that time, he has reiterated his belief that a single-payer system would be unworkable in America. From an online town hall discussion on March 26:
And so what evolved in America was an employer-based system. It may not be the best system if we were designing it from scratch. But that’s what everybody is accustomed to. That’s what everybody is used to. It works for a lot of Americans. And so I don’t think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.
So why are Republicans so afraid of giving the public one more option in health care, if they are supposedly all about “choice”? In his press conference last week, Obama addressed this hypocrisy:
Why would it [a public option] drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
In fact, one of the reasons that Obama has said a public option is so important is that it will “give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.” The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has put together a document debunking the myths surrounding the public option here.
Transcript: More »
GE CEO Jeff Immelt: Businesses Spending Money To Preserve The Status Quo Is ‘Just Lunacy’
GE CEO Jeff Immelt: Businesses Spending Money To Preserve The Status Quo Is ‘Just Lunacy’
Earlier this month, the Chamber of Commerce announced the $100 million Campaign for Free Enterprise, which Chamber President Tom Donohue called the “most important project the Chamber has embraced in its nearly 100-year history.” With the campaign, the Chamber is attempting to influence and obstruct a slew of upcoming legislation, including cap-and-trade, health care reform, and financial regulatory reform. On Wednesday, in fact, the Chamber condemned the House Democrats’ health care bill, calling it “broken beyond repair” and advocating that Congress “take this legislation back to the drawing board.”
Previously, no one had rebuked the Chamber’s approach. But last night, Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric, appeared on Charlie Rose and said that businesses spending money to obstruct legislation like this is “just lunacy“:
From a business standpoint, the notion that businesses are going to put a bunch of money in ads to protect the status quo is just lunacy. It’s just not what we should be doing right now. Like I said, when I think about health care in a GE context, we’re going to win some, we’re going to lose some on health care. But I think it would be totally inappropriate for GE to be saying we don’t need health care reform right now. We do.
Watch it:
It’s in the interest of big business to get health care costs down, a notion that Immelt seems to grasp. As Igor Volsky pointed out, our health care system — by leaving so many uninsured and not embracing new technologies or comparative effectiveness research — “inflates health care costs and expects businesses to pick-up the tab.” General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner has admitted that a national health care program could have helped the auto industry avert financial disaster.
So are there any other corporation’s out there that also think the Chamber’s campaign is lunacy? Or do the likes of Nike, UPS, and Duke Energy all believe that the Chamber is really doing what’s best for business?
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
In reversal, Specter announces support for public health insurance option.
In reversal, Specter announces support for public health insurance option.
At a union rally in Washington, DC yesterday with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) declared his support for a public health insurance option. Further, Specter said that Americans have a “right” to health care, and predicted that health care reform will happen this year. “I think Senator Schumer has the right idea about having a public component,” Specter said:
I compliment you on your tenacity and your determination and your passion. I agree with you that health care is a right. … I do believe that there will be health care legislation. I know you are very interested in the public component and I think Senator Schumer has the right idea about having a public component which is to have a level playing field with the private sector, but the public component can be in place. [...]
Your enthusiasm has a big effect on what goes on three blocks away on the Congress of the United States. And you will get health care.
Previously, Specter opposed the creation of a public option. In May, NBC’s David Gregory asked Specter if he would support health care reform that included a public component. “No,” Specter replied.
Grassley: In Order For Health Care To Be ‘Bipartisan, ‘We Need To Make Sure There Is No Public Option’
Grassley: In Order For Health Care To Be ‘Bipartisan, ‘We Need To Make Sure There Is No Public Option’
On MSNBC this morning, Norah O’Donnell asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, “what needs to be in” a health care reform bill “for it to be bipartisan.” After saying it needs to be paid for, Grassley declared, “We need to make sure that there’s no public option.” When O’Donnell double-checked that Grassley was saying that a public option was a dealbreaker for Republicans, he replied, “Absolutely.” Watch it:
By claiming that a public option would destroy bipartisanship, Grassley is ignoring the preferences of a strong majority of Americans. Earlier this week, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that a public health insurance option (which would lower costs and improve quality) is supported by 72 percent of Americans, including 50 percent of Republicans.
Additionally, Grassley’s antipathy to a public plan flies in the face of his own constituents. In May, the Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found that 56 percent of Iowans support a public plan:
More than half of Iowans support a public health insurance plan, and almost half of the state’s residents who aren’t already insured say they would consider enrolling.
The Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, conducted March 30 to April 1 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, showed 56 percent of Iowans support creation of a public plan, 37 percent oppose the idea and 7 percent are unsure.
During his press conference yesterday, President Obama indicated that a public option was not “non-negotiable.” In a meeting with Senators yesterday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly said that the White House wants a “bipartisan” plan and is “open to alternatives” on the public plan.
Cornyn Cites Inaccurate Powerline Blog Post To Claim That The Public Health Insurance Isn’t Popular
Cornyn Cites Inaccurate Powerline Blog Post To Claim That The Public Health Insurance Isn’t Popular
Yesterday, the New York Times and CBS News (NYT/CBS) released a new poll showing broad support for health care reform, with 72 percent of respondents favoring the creation of a publicly-funded health insurance option. The conservative blog Powerline immediately took issue with the poll, arguing (wrongly) that the sample was skewed because 48 percent of respondents reported voting for President Obama last fall, while just 25 percent of respondents reported voting for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Powerline compared the NYT/CBS figures to the actual election results in which Obama won 53 percent of the vote and McCain won 46 percent.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), apparently convinced by Powerline’s argument, cited the blog in two cable news appearances this afternoon to deny that there was any significant public support for the creation of a public health insurance option. “With all due respect to the New York Times and CBS, this polling sample was skewed,” he told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Similarly, on Fox News Cornyn said, “I think there’s been some particularly good blog coverage like Powerline blog talking how that sample was so skewed as to be meaningless.” Watch it:
Unfortunately for Cornyn, Powerline is wrong to conclude the sample is skewed based on the data they cited. As Slate’s Christopher Beam explained last week, the disparity between last fall’s actual vote tallies and the results reported by NYT/CBS yesterday comes down to respondents being too embarrassed to admit that they didn’t vote:
The main explanation for the gap, say pollsters, is people who didn’t vote at all saying they did. These people tend to say they picked the winning candidate. Just look at the Times and Journal polls, where about 80 percent of respondents said they voted in the 2008 election. In fact, turnout was about 61 percent. (A 20 percent gap is pretty standard.) Pollsters attribute the disparity to the social discomfort of having to admit, even to a stranger on the phone, that you didn’t vote.
Further as Beam explains, “Retroactive vote reporting tends to be a proxy for popularity. … In a 2006 NYT poll, more people said they voted for John Kerry in 2004 than voted for Bush.” If Powerline wanted a more reliable indicator of who was in the NYT/CBS sample, they could have looked at the proportion of respondents that identified themselves as liberal (27 percent) and compared that to the proportion that identified themselves as conservative (29 percent). Likewise, Powerline could have noted that the sample was 24 percent Republican and 38 percent Democrat — a fairly normal party identification advantage for Democrats at the moment.
To buttress their claim that the NYT/CBS poll was inaccurate, Powerline linked to a recent Rasmussen poll that found comparatively little support for the creation of a public health insurance option, with just 41 percent of Americans supporting such a move. But as Nate Silver documented last week, it is the Rasmussen poll — not the NYT/CBS poll — that falls outside typical levels of support for a public health insurance found in other recent surveys:
Powerline’s concerns about the accuracy of the latest NYT/CBS poll are unfounded, but that likely won’t keep Cornyn from continuing to refer to Powerline’s discussion as “particularly good blog coverage.”
Former Rep. Tom Davis To Elderly Woman With Diabetes: ‘Good Luck’ Finding Health Insurance
Former Rep. Tom Davis To Elderly Woman With Diabetes: ‘Good Luck’ Finding Health Insurance
On CSPAN’s Washington Journal yesterday, former Republican congressman Tom Davis received a call from an elderly woman named Dorothy, who said that because she has diabetes, health insurance companies “reject” her. “They don’t even want to accept me,” said Dorothy. “Is that, is that possible they could get away with that? That seems like discriminating.”
Davis responded by saying that he understood her “dilemma” and that she probably wouldn’t be able to retire by 62 as she desires. Advising her that she’d be alright if she found “a job with a major employer,” Davis said it would be “difficult” on her own:
DAVIS: I don’t think you’ll find, probably be able to find some health insurance but if its with a small business or you’re going out on your own, it’s difficult at this point. There may be a government plan or private plans that are mandated coming out of this that are maybe able to help you. … I don’t know any reason why you shouldn’t be able to find something out there, but you want to look for an employer that has a health care plan. Good luck.
Later in the show, another caller criticized Davis for his “good luck” response, saying that it “encapsulates the entire Republican Party’s attitude towards any problems that are facing the American people today.” Davis replied that he didn’t mean “good luck” as a “kiss off,” but just as “good luck to you as you try to move through this problem.” Watch it:
Beyond responding to Dorothy with seeming callousness, Davis’ answer to her problem is also contradictory in its approach to a public health care option.
Davis first tells Dorothy that “a government plan” may “be able to help you.” (Which is true.) But when challenged by the later caller, he argued, “I don’t know that she can count on Washington to solve it for her.” In the next sentence, however, he said that she “can probably get some relief” when she qualifies for Medicare, which is government-provided. A NYT/CBS News poll this weekend found that 72 percent of Americans support creating a public health insurance option.
Transcript: More »
Steele’s health plan: ‘Do the deal. It’s not that complicated.’ ‘Hello?! Am I missing something here?’
Steele’s health plan: ‘Do the deal. It’s not that complicated.’ ‘Hello?! Am I missing something here?’
While hosting Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, RNC Chairman Michael Steele fearmongered about a government-run “health police” that would force Americans to get their annual physicals. The way to solve the health care crisis, Steele said in another portion of the show, is “not that complicated”: All we have to do is “figure out who” doesn’t have access to health care, “and give them access!”
STEELE: So if it’s a cost problem, it’s easy: Get the people in a room who have the most and the most direct impact on cost, and do the deal. Do the deal. It’s not that complicated.
If it’s an access question, people don’t have access to health care, then figure out who they are, and give them access! Hello?! Am I missing something here? If my friend Trevor has access to health care, and I don’t, why do I need to overhaul the entire system so I can get access he already has? why don’t you just focus on me and get me access?
Listen to it:
Who knew that, despite the years of delay and debate, all the president has to do is “do the deal” and “give [everyone] access!” Steele’s right — it’s not complicated! Steele should be supporting a public plan, which is the best path to ensuring increased access to health care for all.
Steele fearmongers on health care reform, warns of ‘health police’ who will enforce yearly physicals.
Steele fearmongers on health care reform, warns of ‘health police’ who will enforce yearly physicals.
This morning, RNC Chairman Michael Steele hosted Bill Bennett’s radio show. When a caller, who identified himself as a doctor, asked how President Obama would “mandate” preventive care, Steele declared that the government would impose a “national ID system” that would contain every American’s health information “on a grid.” He warned that this system — completely fabricated by Steele — would result in the “health police” enforcing everyone’s yearly check-up:
STEELE: Well you’ll get issued, Doc, you’re gonna issue, to your patients, a health care card that’s gonna be part of a national ID system that, you know, every time I charge something or use that card, it’s going to show up on a grid what I’ve done and what I have failed to do, according to the government plan. So the government will know whether or not I’ve had my physical at the appropriate time and then probably some health police will come knocking on my door telling me I’m now costing the system money because I haven’t, you know, gone and done my preventive care.
Listen to it:
Needless to say, no one is proposing the creation of a “health police.” Steele’s fearmongering is his latest effort to block meaningful health care reform from passing this year.
Reneging on pledge to give Obama his ‘silence,’ President Bush criticizes Obama’s health care plan.
Reneging on pledge to give Obama his ‘silence,’ President Bush criticizes Obama’s health care plan.
After initially stating that he wanted President Obama to “succeed” and that he owed Obama his “silence,” President Bush yesterday decided to reverse course and criticize the President. The former President took aim at Obama’s desire to introduce a public health insurance option for Americans:
“There are a lot of ways to remedy the situation without nationalizing health care,” Mr. Bush said. “I worry about encouraging the government to replace the private sector when it comes to providing insurance for health care.”
Asked by the evening emcee at the 104th annual Manufacturer and Business Association meeting if he finds the new president’s policies “socialist,” Mr. Bush started then stopped.
“I hear a lot of those words, but it depends on…,” he said, breaking off. He later offered a more diplomatic assessment: “We’ll see.”
Former Gov. Howard Dean, a strong advocate of a public plan, responded to Bush’s criticisms this morning on NBC’s Today Show. “We’ve had a government system for 50 years,” Dean said. “The Republicans didn’t like it then — it’s called Medicare. Everybody over 65 is already in the government system. Let the people who are under 65 make a choice.” Watch it:
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 76 percent of respondents believe that it is “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”
Sen. Johnny Isakson thinks a public plan competing against private health care programs is a ‘good system.’
Sen. Johnny Isakson thinks a public plan competing against private health care programs is a ‘good system.’
On Monday, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) told the Georgia Public Broadcasting News that although he opposes a single-payer system, he would support a system where there is competition between public and private health care programs:
ISAKSON: Having private competition, facilities like Emory that are private, public like Grady competing with one another is a good system. What we have got to guard against is becoming a single-payer government system. You take competition out of health care and you’ll have less quality and a higher cost.
Listen here:
Indeed, President Obama outlined Monday that he too opposes single-payer and would prefer a system where “the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option” because “it will keep them honest and it will keep — help keep their prices down.” Is Isakson prepared to vote for Obama’s health care plan?
Republicans try to obstruct health care bill.
Republicans try to obstruct health care bill.
Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee began marking up Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) Affordable Health Care Act. Republicans, who pushed for the incomplete HELP legislation to be studied by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and then pretended that the agency scored the entire bill, tried to obstruct the effort by complaining that the CBO had not yet scored the full proposal. During the hearing, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) argued that the hearing be postponed until a full cost-analysis is available. Watch it:
The GOP then maneuvered to introduce a host of amendments simply as a delaying tactic. Rather than offering constructive improvements that could lower costs and expand coverage, a good number of the GOP’s proposed amendments do nothing to solve the health care crisis. The Wonk Room has the run-down.
Gallup health care poll: Americans put faith in insurance companies over GOP
Gallup health care poll: Americans put faith in insurance companies over GOP
Today, House Republicans offered a substance-less alternative to the Democrats’ health care plan. The GOP “plan” comes on the same day that Gallup releases new numbers showing the GOP ranks last when it comes to who the public thinks would get health care reform right. Only 34% of Americans are confident that Republicans in Congress will make the correct decisions, which is less than the insurance companies (35%) and the pharmaceutical companies (40%). The public’s faith in President Obama comes in at 58%, while confidence in Democratic leaders in Congress is at 42%:
AMA President: Opposition to public plan is motivated by desire to ‘protect the health insurance industry.’
AMA President: Opposition to public plan is motivated by desire to ‘protect the health insurance industry.’
A week ago, the American Medical Association declared its opposition to a public health insurance option, a key plank of President Obama’s health reform plan. Obama subsequently addressed the AMA membership directly, explaining his proposal and telling them that “the public option is not your enemy, it is your friend.” It appears that Obama’s argument may have compelled the AMA to rethink its position. The organization is now concerned that media reports are portraying them as “opposed to reform” and too favorable towards the insurance industry:
On Tuesday, the American Medical Association considered a resolution that would have opposed any new public plan that would “risk the elimination of a healthy competitive market for private health insurance.”
Before its delegates moved toward final passage, AMA president Nancy H. Nielsen intervened and asked delegates to focus on what they could support. […]
“I do not believe it’s the position of this House of Delegates of the American Medical Association to protect the health insurance industry,” Nielsen said, prompting loud applause from the members.
“I think the health insurance industry pays a lot of money to people who can protect them.”
“That was about creating an impression that we are not part of the problem, we are part of the solution,” said Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll