The Divisions in the White House Over Health-Care Reform

[IndianaGreen]

How can we sit still on our collective asses when we see the games being played in the Beltway at our expense?

The Divisions in the White House Over Health-Care Reform

This is health-care reform's endgame, or close to it. Next Wednesday, Barack Obama will give a prime-time address before both houses of Congress. But that's not all he's giving Congress. The administration is going to put a plan down on paper. The question is what it will say.

Conversations with a number of White House officials make it clear that, at this point, even they don't know. The argument was raging as recently as last night, and appears to have hardened into two main camps. Both camps agree that the cost of the bill has to come down. The question is how much, and what can be sacrificed.

The first camp could be called "universal-lite." They're focused on preserving the basic shape of the bill. They think a universal plan is necessary for a number of reasons: For one thing, the insurance market regulations don't work without universality, as you can't really ask insurers to offer standard prices if the healthy and the young don't have to enter the system. For another, it will be easier to change subsidies or improve the benefit package down the road if the initial offerings prove inadequate. New numbers are easier than new features. Creating a robust structure is the most important thing. This camp seems to be largely headed by the policy people.

The second camp is not universal at all. This camp believes the bill needs to be scaled back sharply in order to ensure passage. Covering 20 million people isn't as good as covering 40 million people, but it's a whole lot better than letting the bill fall apart and covering no one at all. It's also a success of some sort, and it gives you something to build on. What that sacrifices in terms of structure it gains in terms of political appeal. This camp is largely headed by members of the political team.

Both camps accept that the administration's proposal will be less generous than what has emerged from either the HELP or House Committees. The question, it seems, is how much less generous.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_divisions_in_the_white_hou.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. 80% Of Americans Want A Public Option, Democrats Control Both Houses of Congress

and the President is a Democrat.

What am I missing here? Why the cowering?

[librechik]

2. we have only about 40 votes in the Senate for a public option.

too many Dems are in the wrong camp on this issue.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Obama Should Have Read LBJ's Biography

instead of "Team of Rivals" - he'd see how to handle this.

Given that 80% of Americans want the public option, and given that Obama is (or used to be) the most persuasive orator in generations, this should be a non-issue. It's absurd.

[librechik]

10. yes indeed--and it maked sense economically

at least, single payer does.

Medicare For All. What the hell is so complicated about that.

Another blown chance.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Medicare For All Would Be So Much More Defensible

Because Medicare is a known entity - now Obama needs to fight lies that people believe because nobody knows what this new plan actually is.

[sandnsea]

3. Arkansas and North Dakota

primarily.

[IndianaGreen]

5. My Senator Evan Bayh does not support a public option

Why would he? His wife is a corporate lawyer for Wellpoint, a major healthcare provider. The Bayhs know who butters their bread.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Then Obama Should Go After Them

Big time. Isn't that what Emanuel's supposed to be good at? As far as I can tell, he's a wuss.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Rahm Emanuel is the 'anonymous' source that keeps floating trigger trial balloons

He knows who butters his bread as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. If True, Then Obama Should Fire Him. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

12. There was also Keith Olbermann tonight

Keith: "White House will not confirm tonight that the public option is sacrosanct."

"Axelrod non-committal on public option."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32665484

[MannyGoldstein]

14. On DU, That Means "Obama Is 100% Behind The Public Option".

Get with it.

[IndianaGreen]

15. So you are addicted to Kool Aid...

Good luck!

[Amos Moses]

I'm pretty sure MG just forgot to use

:sarcasm:

Taken the right way, it was actually a good observation.

[prostomulgus]

13. Damn straight!

We need to let these Dinos know that there is a price to pay for helping the repukes obstruct progress. Burn a couple of them and the rest will fall in line.

It's past time to play hardball here.

[ProSense]

17. Did you vote for him? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

19. No other acceptable choice on the ballot

but he is not his father Birch Bayh, who opposed the Vietnam War when it was unpopular to do so.

[ProSense]

22. Then you need to hold him accountable. He's up for re-election in 2010. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

23. Bayh should be challenged and defeated in primary

Here is the letter I got from him on health reform:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=151x7123

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. Maybe he's feeling like he might be a little less flush with cash later on?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=H04

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products: Top Recipients

Top 20 Recipients

Rank Candidate Office Amount
1 Obama, Barack (D) Senate $2,100,543
2 Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $686,349
3 McCain, John (R) Senate $668,422
4 Romney, Mitt (R) $382,711
5 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Senate $349,485
6 Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $333,564
7 Specter, Arlen (R-PA) Senate $283,449
8 Coleman, Norm (R-MN) Senate $263,078
9 Dingell, John D (D-MI) House $225,136
10 Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) House $192,700
11 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $190,580
12 Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) House $189,978
13 Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate $184,796
14 Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Senate $177,682
15 Smith, Gordon H (R-OR) Senate $169,300
16 Eshoo, Anna (D-CA) House $169,098
17 Roberts, Pat (R-KS) Senate $167,299
18 Boehner, John (R-OH) House $166,650
19 Barton, Joe (R-TX) House $166,150
20 Enzi, Mike (R-WY) Senate $151,000

[inna]

16. KR. can't believe this thread is in the negatives.

that totally sucks. :shrug:

[ProSense]

18. Maybe people are tired of the spin and BS. n/t

[inna]

21. where's the spin and BS in that article?

[Amos Moses]

24. Think about who you're talking to.

She's being paid for her attempts at damage control.

[dflprincess]

20. "The question, it seems, is how much less generous."

and to whom. I have a feeling it won't be the insurance companies who think it's "less generous".

I also have a feeling it could mean that income limits for subsidies will go down while premiums and out of pocket expenses will go up. (What is the ratio United Health Group wants? - Something like they pay 65 cents out of every claim dollar and we pay 35?)

We will soon reach the point where we're better off doing nothing and letting the whole system collapse.