ANALYSIS-For Obama, healthcare failure is not option

[LWolf]

By John Whitesides

<snip>

With the economy struggling and his poll numbers dipping, the president who made "change" his campaign mantra cannot afford to come up empty on his top legislative priority -- a long-sought overhaul of the costly and complex U.S. healthcare system.

The gathering debate in the Democratic-controlled Congress will be the biggest test yet of Obama's ability to work with lawmakers and deliver on promises. Failure would spark new doubts about a president still seeking a signature accomplishment.

"The guy made big promises and said, 'Yes, we can,' but the question still is, 'Can he?'" Democratic consultant Doug Schoen said. "Failure begats failure, and failure here would raise questions about his ability to lead on a lot of issues."


<snip>

"The last time they failed on healthcare they got Gingrich," said Len Nichols, director of the Health Policy program at the New America Foundation. "This time if they fail they might get Limbaugh," he said in a reference to influential conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, a harsh Obama critic. "So they are highly motivated."

Plenty more:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN09462951

Of course, the real question here is what qualifies as "success." Just passing a bill is not "success," if that bill makes things worse for health care consumers than they are now.

From my perspective, any bill they pass is already a failure, because they took single-payer off the table. A strong public option might make the bill an acceptable, temporary emergency measure. If the public option is gelded or removed, then the bill fails straight out of the gate.

[Oregone]

1. It will fail be any of my standards (affordable healthcare for all)

And it isn't because single-payer is off the table (though that doesn't help). Rather, it is because the current funding of healthcare is not equitable and creates an unaffordable burden on 60% of consumers (which could be reduced with cost-cutting).

The poorest privately pay 22% to 35% of their income on health care (non-elderly and elderly respectively). The richest privately pay 6% to 7% of their income on healthcare. The poorest in this nation pay 366% to 500% more of their income than the highest earners.

Until you can close that gap with public subsidization, such that they are all paying about the same portion of their income *at least*, health care will continue to remain unaffordable to a vast number of Americans. If it is not affordable to purchase or use, it is not accessible. Beyond simply subsidizing those basic cost with a progressive redistributive subsidy, you have to have a net for the exceptions (those 75% of health care catastrophes that still currently go bankrupt).

The "sliding-scale" subsidization with this plan isn't going to make the cut.

[LWolf]

2. That's a good point. nt