Dems' Health Care Plan Mirrors Mass. Costly Mandatory Coverage Law

Dems' Health Care Bill At Issue In Massachusetts Special


With the Massachusetts Senate special election less than two weeks away, Scott Brown is framing himself as the GOP’s last hope to stop Democratic health care legislation, an approach that could provide both parties with an early glimpse at the political resonance of the issue.

As the underdog GOP nominee in one of the most Democratic states in the nation, the state senator’s message has been simple: if he upsets Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley in the January 19 election to fill the seat once held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, he will provide the critical vote to halt the Democrats’ health care bill once the final version is negotiated.

“If you feel that Washington and the health care bill that they’re proposing is systemic of the problems in Washington and the failure to understand average people anymore, then you vote for me because as the 41st senator I can stop a lot of this stuff in its tracks,” Brown told POLITICO. “I can actually force them to go back to the drawing board.”

In 2006, under then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts passed its own version of statewide health care requiring all residents to purchase an insurance plan or face penalties. It was a plan that Brown, a state senator, voted for but he now says those rising costs should lead to a reevaluation of some options and that health care should be done on a state level.

At a press conference last week in Boston, Brown announced he would introduce a bill on Beacon Hill designed to control costs in the state’s health care system by reviewing mandated insurance coverages. He pointed to chiropractic services, in vitro fertilization and alcoholism treatment programs as examples of required coverage that many consumers don’t need but are paid for by their monthly premium.

Brown’s bill calls for allowing people to purchase insurance coverage that better suits their personal medical needs.

Coakley immediately blasted Brown’s effort, saying it would reduce needed coverage for women and seniors while only minimally driving costs down.

“We don’t think Massachusetts voters are going to agree with that direction that he’s proposed,” said Coakley spokesman Corey Welford. “One of the important ways to reduce costs that is to tackle this on a national level, and that’s what the Senate bill would do. Scott Brown’s solution would do nothing about it on a national level except reduce coverage.”

Massachusetts Republicans say that health care is exactly the message Brown should be pounding on in the special election homestretch.

“If Scott can get that message to people and make the point that he’ll vote against it and Martha will vote for it, that he’s going to be the deciding vote on whether it passes or not, I think it’s a very strong message for Scott,” said veteran Massachusetts Republican consultant Charley Manning. “Everybody understands that the health care bill that was passed here has cost much more than anyone every anticipated and that it’s causing huge problems in our state budget, which has a massive deficit.”

Brown’s health care message has already been the subject of a fundraising appeal from Romney, and his campaign is attracting the notice of the conservative blogosphere, where prominent voices have demanded more national party support for Brown’s candidacy while also pushing online donations to his campaign.

But Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh says that Brown’s focus on health care is a flawed strategy because voters have already been through the health care wars in Massachusetts, and that now they’re more interested in jobs and economic issues.

“Massachusetts voters aren’t going to send a Republican to take Ted Kennedy’s seat to vote against the one thing Ted Kennedy worked for his whole life,” said Marsh.

It will take money to spread Brown's message and the attorney general still has a fundraising advantage over the state senator, who just launched his first television ad last week. Some state Republicans contend that the national party is failing to provide sufficient resources to Brown—even as he’s pushing an issue that is likely to be a key GOP talking point in the 2010 midterms.

“Even though Scott Brown is the underdog, there’s no doubt about that, this would be a way to say, ‘Yes, even the people of Massachusetts are so upset with the shenanigans the Democrats have pulled over the health care bill that they can allow them to elect Scott Brown,’” former state GOP Chairman Peter Torkildsen said.

Torkildsen, a former member of Congress, questioned how serious the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee were taking the race.

“He needs help to get that message out. I hope they get out there quickly and don’t wait to the last minute,” he said.

An NRSC spokesperson said in a statement they don’t discuss funding or strategic help given to candidates, but sought to underscore Brown’s 41st vote message.

“As it appears increasingly likely the Democrats’ health care legislation will be unfinished by the time of January’s special election, however, we are confident that Scott Brown's message of restoring checks and balances to Washington as the 41st Republican senator matches up nicely against Martha Coakley's plan to rubber-stamp the current bill,” said NRSC spokesman Colin Reed.

Brown chose not to complain about the national party’s role in the contest. “On the one hand, I’m happy with everything we’ve been given,” he said. “On the other hand, I don’t want to be beholden to anybody. I’ve always been an independent person and thinker and voter.”

The national party has reason to be tightfisted: Even with attention turned to health care, Brown faces significant challenges in getting out the vote in a strongly Democratic state. Special elections historically have low turnout, and the January 19 election falls just after the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday weekend and takes place in a winter month of unpredictable weather.

David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University’s Political Research Center, questioned whether the numbers can add up in Brown’s favor given a volatile electorate and short campaign cycle.

“My sense is that you’re not going to have a big influx of independents,” said Paleologos, who noted that independents make up 51 percent of registered voters in the state, with Democrats accounting for 37 percent and 12 percent identifying as Republicans.

A Suffolk University poll conducted in November showed Brown facing a 31-percentage-point deficit to Coakley, but a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday showed Brown down only nine points, with Coakley at 50 percent to his 41 percent.

The same Rasmussen poll also showed the state somewhat divided on the question of the health care bill, with 53 percent favoring the Democratic plan before Congress, while 45 percent oppose it.

Paleologos said that while the health care issue could boost Brown, other issues such as jobs and the economy will continue to resonate with voters.

“It will have a measured impact, but I don’t know if it will be enough to flip the state from Democratic senator to Republican senator,” he said.

The presence of a third party candidate, Joe Kennedy, is more sand in Brown’s gears. A Libertarian running as an independent, Kennedy is an information technology specialist who’s never run for public office before. Like Brown, he opposes the national health care bill, but he sides with Coakley on some issues, such as opposing a troop surge in Afghanistan.

Although Kennedy benefits from a serendipitous surname, he has made clear that he is of no relation to the late senator’s family. Nevertheless he might pull some votes away from Brown, though opinion is mixed on which candidate he hurts more. Kennedy was not tested in the recent Rasmussen survey.

“In some respects, he’s more conservative than Scott, and in some respects, he’s more liberal than Martha. In the end, I think it hurts Scott more than Martha,” said Marsh. “There are libertarians in Massachusetts, and he’ll get some votes, not a ton. But I don’t think, in the end, that’s going to be the difference between who wins and loses this race.”

Republicans agree that he likely won’t affect the final outcome, though some believe his candidacy might hurt Coakley.

“I think he’s going to siphon off votes from Martha because his name is Joe Kennedy. He’s not going to be pulling Republican votes with a name like Kennedy,” said Massachusetts GOP Chair Jennifer Nassour. “Instead of electing the 60th boring Democrat, you can elect the firecracker 41st senator. That 41st Senate vote is very appealing to people.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, Boston Herald, Google Maps

Obama's Health Care Bill Win A Political "Game Changer"? At What Cost?

Obama's Game-Changing Win


To win passage in the Senate, Democrats gave away the store—and left the GOP an opening to exploit in 2010. But, Eric Alterman argues, they also transformed the political playing field.

Way back on December 2, 1993, an ambitious right-wing think tank denizen and former aide to Dan Quayle by the name William Kristol circulated a terse, four-page memo to Republican leaders warning of the political dangers of allowing a Democratic president to reform the U.S. health-care system.

The memo’s language is almost comically deferential, reflecting what was then its author’s near-complete non-notoriety. “Nothing in these pages is intended to supplant the many thoughtful analyses of the Clinton health-care plan already produced by Republicans and others….”

The thrust of the memo’s argument was clear and unapologetic: Republicans must resist health-care reform lest its success be allowed to “revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining the growth of government.”

We will never know if Kristol was right about 1993: His role as a political swami rather famously leaves much to be desired, (as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might attest, were they still alive). But we do know his memo succeeded in bludgeoning the mind of what was then, relatively speaking, the Republicans’ moderate leaders—turning them from Clinton conciliators into Republican road warriors.

Of course the Clintonites screwed up considerably themselves, failing to embrace any number of perfectly palatable compromises the Republicans (and their own recalcitrant members) had on the table, demanding more than the system could deliver, and ending up, in the words of Elvis Costello, with “less than zero.”

Exactly why Barack Obama has been able to succeed where so many other presidents, going back to Harry Truman, have failed before him is not easy to pinpoint—at least not yet. The United States has long lagged behind other nations in the quality of the health care it delivered to the majority of its citizens.

Truman’s plan never really had a chance, particularly with the Korean War dominating his presidency. Lyndon Johnson focused his attention largely on the elderly and the indigent, and ended up creating Medicare and Medicaid; not bad at the time, one must admit, but they both left the vast majority of middle-class Americans at the mercy of a mercenary industry dedicated to denying coverage whenever it proved unprofitable.

Ted Kennedy writes in his eloquent and moving memoir, True Compass (p.359), of his bafflement at Jimmy Carter, who, after running on a comprehensive reform plan almost identical to the one Kennedy spent his career fighting for, was almost immediately replaced “by the President Carter who wanted to approach health insurance in incremental steps, over time, if certain cost-containment benchmarks were met—and after the 1978 midterm elections.

Pres. Barack Obama, it must be added, not only passed comprehensive health-care reform, but he passed it in a Senate whose barriers against the filibuster of legislation have been considerably reduced to next to nothing.

Filibustering, rather than voting against legislation, is the ideal way for a politician to kill something without being forced to take responsibility for an actual vote. After all, who can mount a campaign against you on behalf of an issue called “Cloture?”

The obvious answer to the question of how Obama managed it is that he gave away the Democratic store. The bill he passed has no public option, no expansion of Medicare to those under 65, and additional restrictions of abortion funding. It is littered with provisions showering holiday goodies on the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the citizens of Nebraska.

To win, Obama and his advisers appeared to offer up one concession after another, coupled with gratuitous insults to the Democrats’ liberal base—as if they needed some outrage on the left to make the whole thing feel kosher. Over all, the 60 votes secured by Harry Reid demonstrated, as no political-science lesson can, that the passage of major legislation in this country makes sausage-making look awfully pretty.

The question, to return to Kristol’s terms of analysis, is what it will mean politically. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) told ABC News, "I think it's going to be a historic mistake for the country if this is what happens to health care," said Barrasso. "Now, as you know, the changes don't actually go into place until four years from now, so people aren't going to be able to see immediately what the problems are.

But they are going to notice the cuts in Medicare and, specifically, the increased taxes which go into effect the day that this bill is signed into law."

He has a point. And the Democrats’ concession on this point is one, from the standpoint of a political observer, I find most puzzling. Why in the world would they agree to a bill that leaves them vulnerable to the whims of the insurance companies—and Republican rhetoric between now and 2014, when they have to win congressional and presidential elections in 2010 and 2012?

How can you sell the benefits if all that people have experienced are the costs?

You can argue, as American Prospect Editor Mark Schmitt does, that it comes down to good government, an aspiration even the most cynical Democrats on occasion find unavoidable.

“The bill as it has passed provides the basic components needed to construct a workable system of near-universal health coverage, and all that is outstanding—implementation and legislative improvement—can be accomplished without anyone needing to beg at the feet of a gleefully sneering Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson.”

But why then, are (most) Democrats so happy and (all) Republicans so glum this Christmas? My guess is that Democrats are gambling on exactly the same ground that so worried William Kristol 16 years ago.

They’ve redefined the playing field of American politics to ground that is inherently favorable to their team. When Americans complain about their health care in the future, are they going to look to the party that wants to do nothing to fix it? No, they’re going to go with the side of political activism and government involvement.

The other side, after all, isn’t even in the game. Republicans had their chance and all they could say was “Bah Humbug.”



View Larger Map


Sources: The Daily Beast, Politico, American Prospect, Google Maps

"Ted Kennedy Would Be Disappointed Health Care Bill Isn't Bi-Partisan"...McCain

Exhausted and Divided, Senate Casts Holiday Vote


The last time the Senate voted on Christmas Eve, in 1895, it represented a moment of national reconciliation, as lawmakers agreed to lift a ban on federal officers who had joined the Confederacy from serving in the post-Civil War military.

“No Animosity Remaining,” proclaimed a celebratory front-page headline in The New York Times the next day.

The same could not be declared about Thursday’s vote approving a bitterly contested health care overhaul at the end of an exhausting 25-day legislative journey. It was the second-longest consecutive stretch in Senate annals and one that severely strained the traditions of collegiality that underpin the institution.

Beneath the bright red jackets, blouses and holiday ties donned to signify the exceedingly rare occasion of a sunrise session the day before Christmas, real tension remained over the merits of the proposal passed along hardened party lines as well as over how the debate unfolded, with its odd postmidnight and early morning votes.

Democrats and their allies rejoiced at realizing an achievement that had eluded them for decades, saying they were on the verge of enacting an expansion of health care coverage that would provide security for millions of Americans. But the excitement was tempered with the reality for some that they will now have to persuade skeptical voters that the measure, which has been subjected to a blizzard of partisan analysis, is in the public’s best interests.

“I know there are a lot of people who have an opposing point of view,” said Senator Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat who was the key 60th vote for the bill. “The use of information and misinformation has really confused the public. Don’t be surprised if you have people who are upset.”

In the minutes leading up to the 7:05 a.m. call of the Senate roll, Republicans sat glum and scowling at their desks as Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the majority leader and architect of the measure, chastised them for choosing “to stand on the sidelines rather than participate in great and greatly needed social change.” It was not a happy holiday moment for them.

“It is sad,” said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who has been willing to cross party lines to work with Democrats but remains firmly opposed to the bill. “I feel that we missed an opportunity.”

Senior Republicans pledged to continue to resist the measure as it heads for negotiations with the House.

“I guarantee you, the people who voted for this bill are going to get an earful when they finally get home for the first time since Thanksgiving,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “There is widespread opposition to this monstrosity.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For all the buildup, the final act was accomplished speedily as senators, ready to race to the region’s airports, assembled with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. presiding and zipped through the climactic vote in about 15 minutes. The outcome drew applause as weary Congressional staff members and administration negotiators looked on. A second vote to approve an increase in federal borrowing power was quickly disposed of, and in just over 30 minutes, lawmakers were heading for the doors with their travel bags.

At the White House, President Obama hung around long enough to congratulate his party, then headed to Hawaii for the holidays with his family.

On Capitol Hill, there was little griping about working right up to the holiday. “Those kids in Iraq are out there,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama. “We have no basis to be whining around here about working.”

Among those in the gallery was Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who was credited by Democrats as inspiring them to push the measure through after his death last summer.

Senator Paul Kirk, who filled Mr. Kennedy’s seat after the Massachusetts legislature took extraordinary steps to provide a dependable vote for health care, said it was an emotional moment that left him elated.

“He is having a Merry Christmas up there in heaven, proud of the leadership and all the work that went into it,” Mr. Kirk said.

The scores of police officers and Senate staff required for a daily session arrived at the Capitol in the dark to prepare for the final vote. Some opponents of the bill did as well.

“I am here to watch my country get signed away,” said Sherri Cooper, who traveled from Georgia to witness the vote, as she searched for an open entrance to the Capitol.

With a final measure near approval, Democrats say they believe they can better sell the plan and focus on benefits intended to provide coverage to more than 30 million Americans and stop ever-rising insurance costs.

“When people learn what is in this bill, which is a lot of good stuff for them, I think we will be in good shape,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, said as he headed into the chamber to cast his vote.

The 25-day Senate run fell one day short of the record set in 1917, when antiwar lawmakers were stalling a measure allowing the arming of merchant ships during World War I.

President Woodrow Wilson, greatly frustrated at the power of a “little group of willful men,” pushed the Senate to create a process to cut off debate, and the Senate adopted its rule allowing senators to impose cloture and force final votes.

That power allowed present-day Democrats to use their 60-vote bloc to overcome Republican objections through a series of cloture votes and push their health care plan into talks with the House.



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Zimbio, Google Maps

Patrick Kennedy Refused Communion For Supporting Abortion Rights

Rep. Patrick Kennedy Banned From Receiving Communion By Bishop Thomas Tobin



The Roman Catholic bishop of Rhode Island said Sunday that he asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy in a 2007 letter to stop receiving Communion, the central sacrament of the church, because of the congressman's public stance on moral issues.

Bishop Thomas Tobin divulged details of his confidential exchange with Kennedy after the Democratic lawmaker told The Providence Journal in a story published Sunday that Tobin had instructed him not to receive Communion. The two men have clashed repeatedly in the past few weeks over abortion.

Kennedy did not say where or how he received those instructions. He declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop's request.

"The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion," Kennedy told the paper in an interview conducted Friday.

Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him "that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I've taken as a public official," particularly on abortion.

Tobin said in a statement Sunday that he "has never addressed matters relative to public officials receiving Holy Communion with pastors of the diocese."

The outspoken prelate and Kennedy, a son of the nation's most famous Roman Catholic family, have feuded since Kennedy in an interview last month criticized Roman Catholic church leaders for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the nation's health care system unless it included tighter restrictions on abortion.

Kennedy voted against an amendment tightening abortion restrictions that was sought by the bishops. But he voted in favor of a health care plan that included the amendment he opposed.

Tobin urged Kennedy not to receive communion in a February 2007 letter, a portion of which was released publicly by Tobin's office Sunday.

"In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, therefore, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so," Tobin wrote.

It was not immediately clear whether Tobin and Kennedy spoke further about the request. Kennedy spokeswoman Kerrie Bennett did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the letter.

Tobin, the spiritual leader of Roman Catholics in Rhode Island, the nation's most heavily Catholic state, demanded an apology from Kennedy after the congressman criticized church leaders who opposed universal health care unless the plans included more restrictions on abortions. He also requested a meeting with Kennedy.

"While I greatly respect the Catholic Church and its leaders, like many Rhode Islanders, the fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic," Kennedy wrote in a letter to Tobin, agreeing to a sitdown. "I embrace my faith which acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity."

Their meeting fell apart. While Tobin called it a mutual decision, Kennedy accused Tobin of failing to abide by an agreement to stop discussing the congressman's faith publicly.

Tobin followed up with a biting public letter published in a diocesan newspaper.

"Sorry, you can't chalk it up to an 'imperfect humanity.' Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your Communion with the Church," Tobin wrote.

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said officials with the archdiocese didn't know whether Kennedy attends Mass in the nation's capital. Anyone who does not believe in core Catholic teachings would be asked not to come forward for Communion, she said. Church leaders continue teaching and counseling those individuals, Gibbs said.

As for Kennedy, Gibbs said "we have not barred anyone from receiving Communion.

"We don't know of his worship habits," she said. "Most legislators return home on the weekends."



View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, NY Daily News, AP, Google Maps

GOP Filing Lawsuit To Stop Kirk From Replacing Kennedy

GOP files suit to block Kirk

After failing in their bid to stop the Massachusetts legislature from giving Democratic Governor Deval Patrick the power to fill a United States Senate vacancy, Republicans are going to court on Friday to try to prevent the governor’s interim pick from taking office.

On the same day that Patrick chose Paul Kirk, a long-time friend and associate of Ted Kennedy to temporarily replace the late senator, Republicans filed court papers arguing that Patrick’s use of an emergency declaration paving the way for the nomination was unconstitutional. Because most Massachusetts laws do not go into effect for 90 days, Patrick had to issue the declaration so that the just-passed legislation allowing him to name a replacement senator could take effect immediately.

A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction against Patrick is scheduled for 8 a.m. on Friday in Suffolk County Superior Court — several hours before Kirk is scheduled to be sworn in to office.

Several legal experts familiar with Massachusetts constitutional law said Republicans could face an uphill battle in seeking to delay or invalidate the governor’s appointment.

“From the beginning, the Republican Party of Massachusetts has been focused on ensuring the laws of our Commonwealth are properly followed,” the Massachusetts GOP chairwoman, Jennifer Nassour, said in a statement. “While we opposed the change in the election law, once changed, we believe Governor Patrick has an obligation to follow the law as written.”

After signing the bill that changed the state’s succession law Thursday morning, the governor sent a letter to Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin declaring it an emergency law.

“So that the people of the Commonwealth may have full representation in the United States Senate without delay,” the governor wrote, “I declare that it is in the public interest and convenience that this Act take effect immediately.”

Lawrence M. Friedman, a professor at New England Law in Boston who studies Massachusetts constitutional issues, predicted that the GOP challenge was unlikely to succeed.

“The court will treat it seriously and I expect given the gravity of the issue, it might even work its way to the Supreme Judicial Court,” Friedman said in an interview. “But in my opinion it’s unlikely that the judiciary is going to second guess the governor’s reasons for an emergency.”

Friedman added: “In a way it’s a political question and if the governor made a bad call, the voters will take it out on him in the next election.”

After reviewing the injunction, Marc Perlin, an associate dean and professor at Suffolk University Law School, agreed that there was little chance Republicans would be able to stop the appointment.

“Getting an injunction under any circumstance requires a significant showing,” Perlin said. “This raises issues of separation of powers and makes it even more difficult. Courts are typically reluctant to get involved in these types of matters.”

Kirk, 71, will serve in office only until Massachusetts voters go to the polls on Jan. 19 to elect a permanent replacement for Kennedy in a special election, but his appointment was a win for Democrats who have been seeking a 60-vote majority in the Senate as lawmakers in Washington debate health care reform and other issues this fall.


Sources: Politico, Huffington Post

Paul Kirk Is Chosen To Replace Ted Kennedy...60 Dem Seats!!

Paul Kirk Jr. Kennedys' Pick For Mass. Senate Seat

The Massachusetts House has given final approval to a bill allowing the governor to appoint an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The 95-59 House vote came moments after a separate vote in which lawmakers declined to make the law go into effect, leaving it to Gov. Deval Patrick to declare an emergency if he wants a replacement right away.

The bill now moves to the Senate for final action.

A family confidant says Kennedy's two sons, Edward Kennedy Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, want former Democratic National Committe chairman Paul Kirk to get the appointment.

The sons of the late Edward M. Kennedy have urged the governor to pick Paul G. Kirk Jr., the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to temporarily replace their father in the U.S. Senate.

A family confidant said Wednesday both Edward Kennedy Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., had endorsed Kirk in separate phone calls.

A top aide to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick confirmed the contacts but added, "No decision has been made yet." A spokeswoman in Patrick Kennedy's congressional office declined to comment.

Massachusetts lawmakers were expected Wednesday to give final approval to a change in the Senate succession law so the governor can temporarily fill Senate vacancies. The interim senator would serve until the seat is filled permanently through a special election on Jan. 19.

Patrick could announce his pick as early as Thursday, although the bill's final approval was delayed for more than two hours Wednesday as Democrats and Republicans negotiated on whether to label it "emergency" legislation taking effect immediately instead of in the usual 90 days. Without an agreement, Patrick would be forced to declare it an emergency on his own, which could prompt charges of political expediency.

The 71-year-old Kirk, a Boston attorney, was close friends with the senator. He and his wife, Gail, live on Cape Cod, and he was among the few people allowed to regularly visit Kennedy at his Hyannis Port home before he died there of brain cancer on Aug. 25.

Kirk also knows the senator's staff intimately and would likely be assured of their loyalty given his relationship with Kennedy.

As a senior statesmen who has never served in political office, he would pose no threat to any of the candidates competing in the special election. The Democratic field includes Attorney General Martha Coakley, vying to be the state's first female senator, and U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, the lone member of the state's congressional delegation in the race.

The family confidant, who like the Patrick aide demanded anonymity to speak about private conversations, refused to reveal whether the senator's widow, Vicki, had also endorsed Kirk. Vicki Kennedy has granted no interviews since her husband's death, but Patrick revealed recently that she had told him she did not want to be considered for the interim appointment.

Kirk graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School and served on Kennedy's staff between 1969 and 1977. He ran the Democratic National Committee in the run-up to former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis' unsuccessful run for president in 1988.

Kirk also co-founded the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has sponsored every presidential and vice presidential debate involving major candidates since 1988.

He now serves as chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. He was in the national spotlight last month when he hosted a memorial service the evening before Kennedy's funeral.

Kirk also is exceptionally close to Caroline Kennedy, who serves as president of the library foundation honoring her late father. He stood on the stage with her and the late senator each year as they dispensed the library's annual "Profiles in Courage" awards.

Asked recently whether he would be interested in an interim appointment, Kirk told The Associated Press in an e-mail, "It would be much too presumptuous of me to even consider. Hope you will understand."

Dukakis is among those who is said to be under consideration. He, too, has declined to comment on the question.



View Larger Map


Sources: Huffington Post, Politico, JFK Library, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Democrats Search For Another Strong Senate Health Care Leader...Like Ted Kennedy, Not Baucus Nor Reid

(What ails Health Care, ails America.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Wanted: A Senate Health-Care Leader


The Democrat-versus-Democrat battle over Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s health care proposal is more than just political posturing: It’s the latest sign that Senate Democrats so far lack a clear public leader on the issue at a crucial time in the debate.

Part of the problem facing Senate Democrats is institutional; unlike the House, the Senate is a body that gives each member great power to influence the legislative process — significantly limiting the power of leaders. Another part of the problem is the sweeping nature of the issue: Health care reform falls into the jurisdiction of several House and Senate committees, putting far more cooks in the kitchen than on most other matters on Capitol Hill.

And part of the problem is personnel. In Sen. Ted Kennedy, Democrats had a man of “unusual influence for many reasons — his knowledge, his discipline, his friendships, his experience,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

Without him, there are individual Democratic senators playing leading roles in certain parts of the debate, but no overall go-to guy — a figure who could serve as a trusted public leader on the issue, providing a clear argument for the bill across the airwaves and acting as the chief deal maker behind the scenes.

Baucus, a moderate who cut deals with President George W. Bush over Medicare legislation and tax cuts, has long been distrusted by his party’s liberals — and the thought of him leading the Senate on the biggest domestic issue in years is making the stomachs of some of them turn.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is trusted by his caucus, and he’s moving aggressively behind the scenes to soothe concerns of possible defectors. But in public, Reid, who faces a tough reelection next year, has taken a hands-off role as the bill works its way through the committee process — and has not driven the policy debate.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who filled in for Kennedy this summer to draft a competing health care bill, now is turning more of his attention toward financial regulatory reform.

And while President Barack Obama has laid out his vision for health care reform, he’s allowing the Senate to fill in the details without offering a written plan himself — exposing the White House and the Democratic leadership to attacks that no one is really leading.

“It’s pretty hard to lead the Senate if you don’t get the leadership out of the White House,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

With the health care bill now at a pivotal moment as Finance Committee deliberations start Tuesday, Senate Democratic leaders and the White House are working intensely behind the scenes to keep the Senate’s Democratic Caucus from fraying along ideological lines. The idea: Soothe concerns of wayward senators by hearing them out and assuring them that they will have ample opportunity to change the bill to their liking by allowing the process to advance.

Democratic senators who speak out against the process or seriously question the health care efforts can expect to hear from the president and their leadership.

When Sen. Jay Rockefeller issued a scathing critique of the Baucus bill last week, Reid called him by telephone almost immediately; soon after, the West Virginia Democrat was on his way to the White House for a one-on-one meeting with Obama. Rockefeller later seemed to take the edge off his critique of the bill.

“There are a lot of important discussions happening behind the scenes,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who sits on the Finance Committee.

At a private Democratic Caucus meeting last Thursday, Reid stood up and told his fellow Democratic senators that they need to be willing to compromise, pointing out that he had “never” introduced a bill that went into law with everything that he wanted.

“We have numbers, we have a president, therefore we have a responsibility” to get health care done this year, Reid said, according to a senator in the room.

And at the meeting, liberal Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) invoked a military phrase by saying that Democrats need to “fight or die” when it comes to pushing the health care bill, according to a person familiar with the account.

Emerging from the meeting, Democrats sounded confident that they had the same goal in mind.

“If you’d been sitting in this room just now, you’d be amazed how calm, optimistic and determined the entire caucus is to get this done,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Asked why Democrats didn’t seem on the same page publicly, she said, “It’s a work in progress,” citing the various legislative proposals — including the Senate Finance Committee bill and one developed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Indeed, Reid will take a much bigger role once the bill heads to the floor as he tries to reconcile the HELP bill with the Finance measure, a daunting task that risks dividing his caucus further.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the majority leader will work with the Finance Committee, HELP Committee and Obama in a bid to produce a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate.

So far, Democrats seem optimistic that Reid will bridge the divide behind the scenes.

“Once the committees are out, then Harry Reid will lead,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “I’m not concerned about that.”

Still, Reid, whose poll numbers have sunk during his 2010 reelection bid, is under pressure back home to show he won’t support a bill that could hurt Nevada. And last week he criticized the Baucus plan for placing too heavy of a burden on his state to help finance Medicaid programs.

“If he fixes the bill for Nevada, the Democratic senators from a lot of other states are going to fix the bill for their states,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

A clear leader may yet emerge as the process continues to advance — whether it’s Baucus, Dodd, new HELP Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) or Reid.

“What I’ve suggested to my own colleagues and to our leader [is that] we need to keep in the mind this: The process we’re about to begin in the process in the Finance Committee is the end of the beginning,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del).


Sources: Politico, MSNBC

Sen. Ted Kennedy Stumps For Pres. Obama On Universal Health Care...Shares Voters Personal Stories

Newsweek----

In 1964, I was flying with several companions to the Massachusetts Democratic Convention when our small plane crashed and burned short of the runway. My friend and colleague in the Senate, Birch Bayh, risked his life to pull me from the wreckage. Our pilot, Edwin Zimny, and my administrative assistant, Ed Moss, didn't survive. With crushed vertebrae, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung, I spent months in New England Baptist Hospital in Boston. To prevent paralysis, I was strapped into a special bed that immobilizes a patient between two canvas slings. Nurses would regularly turn me over so my lungs didn't fill with fluid. I knew the care was expensive, but I didn't have to worry about that. I needed the care and I got it.

Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.

But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.

This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it's always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years.

Nothing I'm enduring now can compare to hearing that my children were seriously ill. In 1973, when I was first fighting in the Senate for universal coverage, we learned that my 12-year-old son Teddy had bone cancer. He had to have his right leg amputated above the knee. Even then, the pathology report showed that some of the cancer cells were very aggressive. There were only a few long-shot options to stop it from spreading further. I decided his best chance for survival was a clinical trial involving massive doses of chemotherapy. Every three weeks, at Children's Hospital Boston, he had to lie still for six hours while the fluid dripped into his arm. I remember watching and praying for him, all the while knowing how sick he would be for days afterward.

During those many hours at the hospital, I came to know other parents whose children had been stricken with the same deadly disease. We all hoped that our child's life would be saved by this experimental treatment. Because we were part of a clinical trial, none of us paid for it. Then the trial was declared a success and terminated before some patients had completed their treatments. That meant families had to have insurance to cover the rest or pay for them out of pocket. Our family had the necessary resources as well as excellent insurance coverage. But other heartbroken parents pleaded with the doctors: What chance does my child have if I can only afford half of the prescribed treatments? Or two thirds? I've sold everything. I've mortgaged as much as possible. No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world.

That experience with Teddy made it clear to me, as never before, that health care must be affordable and available for every mother or father who hears a sick child cry in the night and worries about the deductibles and copays if they go to the doctor. But that was just one medical crisis. My family, like every other, has faced many—at every stage of life.

I think of my parents and the medical care they needed after their strokes. I think of my son Patrick, who suffered serious asthma as a child and sometimes had to be rushed to the hospital for treatment. (For this reason, we had no dogs in the house when Patrick was young.) I think of my daughter, Kara, diagnosed with lung cancer in 2002. Few doctors were willing to try an operation. One did—and after that surgery and arduous rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, she's alive and healthy today. My family has had the care it needed. Other families have not, simply because they could not afford it.

I have seen letters and e-mails from many of these less fortunate Americans. In their pleas, there's always dignity, but too often desperation. "Our school is closing in June of 2010, which means that I will be losing my job and my health insurance," writes Mary Dunn, a 58-year-old schoolteacher in Eden, S.D. "I am a Type I diabetic, and I had heart bypass surgery in 2005.

My husband is also a teacher [here], so we will both be losing insurance. I am exploring options and have been told that I cannot stay on our group policy or transfer to another policy after our jobs cease because of my medical condition. What am I to do after 39 years of teaching to acquire adequate health coverage?" Dunn also serves as mayor of Eden, for which she is paid $45 a month with no health benefits.

How will we, as a nation, answer her?

I've heard countless such stories, including one from the family of Cassandra Wilson, a 14-year-old who once was a competitive ice skater. She's uninsured because she has petit mal seizures, often 200 times a day. Her parents have run up $30,000 on their credit cards. They've sold her skating equipment on eBay to pay for her care.

These two cases represent only those patients who lack coverage. We also need to find answers for the increasing number of Americans whose insurance costs too much, covers too little, and can be too easily revoked when they face the most serious illnesses.

Our response to these challenges will define our character as a country. But the challenges themselves—and the demands for reform—are not new. In 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran for a third term as president, the platform of his newly created Progressive Party called for national health insurance. Harry Truman proposed it again more than 30 years after Roosevelt was defeated. The plan was attacked, not for the last time, as "socialized medicine," and members of Truman's White House staff were branded "followers of the Moscow party line."

For the next generation, no one ventured to tread where T.R. and Truman fell short. But in the early 1960s, a new young president was determined to take a first step—to free the elderly from the threat of medical poverty. John Kennedy called Medicare "one of the most important measures I have advocated." He understood the pain of injury and illness: as a senator, he had almost died after surgery to repair a back injury sustained during World War II, an injury that would plague him all of his life. I was in college as he recuperated and learned to walk without crutches at my parents' winter home in Florida.

I visited often, and we spent afternoons painting landscapes and seascapes. (It was a competition: at dinner after we finished, we would ask family members to decide whose painting was better.) I saw how the pain would periodically hit him as we were painting; he'd have to put down his brush for a while. And I saw, too, how hard he fought as president to pass Medicare. It was a battle he didn't have the opportunity to finish. But I was in the Senate to vote for the Medicare bill before Lyndon Johnson signed it into law—with Harry Truman at his side. In the Senate, I viewed Medicare as a great achievement, but only a beginning.

In 1966, I visited the Columbia Point Neighborhood Health Center in Boston; it was a pilot project providing health services to low-income families in the two-floor office of an apartment building. I saw mothers in rocking chairs, tending their children in a warm and welcoming setting. They told me this was the first time they could get basic care without spending hours on public transportation and in hospital waiting rooms. I authored legislation, which passed a few months later, establishing the network of community health centers that are all around America today.

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House.

I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.

That didn't happen as soon as I thought it would. When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away and do nothing—even though Republicans were again in control of Congress. We returned to a step-by-step approach.

With Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, the daughter of the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, I crafted a law to make health insurance more portable for those who change or lose jobs. It didn't do enough to fully guarantee that, but we made progress. I worked with my friend Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of our committee, to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program; today it covers more than 7 million children from low-income families, although too many of them could soon lose coverage as impoverished state governments cut their contributions.

Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors.

As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.

To help finance a bill, the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to lower prices for seniors, not only saving them money for prescriptions but also saving the government tens of billions in Medicare payments over the next decade. Senator Baucus has agreed with hospitals on more than $100 billion in savings.

We're working with Republicans to make this a bipartisan effort. Everyone won't be satisfied—and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we've done in other great struggles—in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don't get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can't afford is to wait another generation.

I long ago learned that you have to be a realist as you pursue your ideals. But whatever the compromises, there are several elements that are essential to any health-reform plan worthy of the name.

First, we have to cover the uninsured. When President Clinton proposed his plan, 33 million Americans had no health insurance. Today the official number has reached 47 million, but the economic crisis will certainly push the total higher. Unless we act now, within a few years, 55 million Americans could be left without coverage even as the economy recovers.

All Americans should be required to have insurance. For those who can't afford the premiums, we can provide subsidies. We'll make it illegal to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. We'll also prohibit the practice of charging women higher premiums than men, and the elderly far higher premiums than anyone else. The bill drafted by the Senate health committee will let children be covered by their parents' policy until the age of 26, since first jobs after high school or college often don't offer health benefits.

To accomplish all of this, we have to cut the costs of health care. For families who've seen health-insurance premiums more than double—from an average of less than $6,000 a year to nearly $13,000 since 1999—one of the most controversial features of reform is one of the most vital. It's been called the "public plan." Despite what its detractors allege, it's not "socialism." It could take a number of different forms.

Our bill favors a "Community Health-Insurance Option." In short, this means that the federal government would negotiate rates—in keeping with local economic conditions—for a plan that would be offered alongside private insurance options. This will foster competition in pricing and services. It will be a safety net, giving Americans a place to go when they can't find or afford private insurance, and it's critical to holding costs down for everyone.

We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days—at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these re-admissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

Social justice is often the best economics. We can help disabled Americans who want to live in their homes instead of a nursing home. Simple things can make all the difference, like having the money to install handrails or have someone stop by and help every day. It's more humane and less costly—for the government and for families—than paying for institutionalized care. That's why we should give all Americans a tax deduction to set aside a small portion of their earnings each month to provide for long-term care.

Another cardinal principle of reform: we have to make certain that people can keep the coverage they already have. Millions of employers already provide health insurance for their employees. We shouldn't do anything to disturb this. On the contrary, we need to mandate employer responsibility: except for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, every company should have to cover its workers or pay into a system that will.

We need to prevent disease and not just cure it. (Today 80 percent of health spending pays for care for the 20 percent of Americans with chronic illnesses like diabetes, cancer, or heart disease.) Too many people get to the doctor too seldom or too late—or know too little about how to stay healthy. No one knows better than I do that when it comes to advanced, highly specialized treatments, America can boast the best health care in the world—at least for those who can afford it. But we still have to modernize a system that doesn't always provide the basics.

I've heard the critics complain about the costs of change. I'm confident that at the end of the process, the change will be paid for—fairly, responsibly, and without adding to the Federal Deficit. It doesn't make sense to negotiate in the pages of NEWSWEEK, but I will say that I'm open to many options, including a surtax on the wealthy, as long as it meets the principle laid down by President Obama: that there will be no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. What I haven't heard the critics discuss is the cost of inaction. If we don't reform the system, if we leave things as they are, health-care inflation will cost far more over the next decade than health-care reform. We will pay far more for far less—with millions more Americans Uninsured or Under-Insured.

This would threaten not just the health of Americans but also the strength of the American economy. Health-care spending already accounts for 17 percent of our entire domestic product. In other advanced nations, where the figure is around 10 percent, everyone has insurance and health outcomes that are equal or better than ours. This disparity undermines our ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. General Motors spends more per vehicle on health care than on steel.

We will bring health-care reform to the Senate and House floors soon, and there will be a vote. A century-long struggle will reach its climax. We're almost there. In the meantime, I will continue what I've been doing—making calls, urging progress. I've had dinner twice recently at my home in Hyannis Port with Senator Dodd, and when President Obama called me during his Rome trip after meeting with the Pope, much of our discussion was about health care. I believe the bill will pass, and we will end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people.

At another Democratic convention, in arguing for this cause, I spoke of the insurance coverage senators and members of Congress provide for themselves. That was 1980. In the last year, I've often relied on that Congressional insurance.

My wife, Vicki, and I have worried about many things, but not whether we could afford my care and treatment. Each time I've made a phone call or held a meeting about the health bill—or even when I've had the opportunity to get out for a sail along the Massachusetts coast—I've thought in an even more powerful way than before about what this will mean to others. And I am resolved to see to it this year that we create a system to ensure that someday, when there is a cure for the disease I now have, no American who needs it will be denied it.




View Larger Map

Sources: Newsweek, Huffington Post, Google Maps

Pharmaceutical Industry Agrees To Invest $80 Billion In Reduced Medicare Drug Benefits For Seniors

MSNBC----

WASHINGTON - The pharmaceutical industry agreed Saturday to spend $80 billion over the next decade improving drug benefits for seniors on Medicare and defraying the cost of President Barack Obama's health care legislation, capping secretive negotiations involving key lawmakers and the White House.

"This new coverage means affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don't cover the cost of prescriptions," Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement announcing the accord.

The deal marked a major triumph for Baucus as well as the administration. Obama praised the deal.

"The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade," Obama said. "We are at a turning point in America's journey toward health care reform."

Baucus, a Montana Democrat, has been negotiating with numerous industry groups for weeks as he tries to draft legislation that meets Obama's goal of vastly expanding health coverage, has bipartisan support and does not add to the deficit.

Baucus' announcement said drug companies would pay half of the cost of brand-name drugs for seniors in the so-called doughnut hole — a gap in coverage that is a feature of many of the plans providing prescription coverage under Medicare. Other officials said wealthier Medicare beneficiaries would not receive the same break, but there was no mention of that in the statement.

In addition, the entire cost of the drug would count toward a patient's out-of-pocket costs, meaning their insurance coverage would cover more of their expenses than otherwise.

Billy Tauzin, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said that "millions of uninsured and financially struggling Americans are depending on us to accomplish comprehensive health care reform this year. Today, America's pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies are signaling their strong support for these critically important efforts."

Higher rebates to fund some insurance?

While none of the changes in the prescription drug program would directly lower government costs, several officials also said the industry agreed to measures that would give the Treasury more money under federal health programs.

In particular, officials said drug companies would likely wind up paying pay higher rebates for certain drugs under Medicaid, the program that provides health care for the poor.

Those funds would be used to help pay for legislation expanding health insurance for millions who now lack it.

One official said the deal was agreed to late Friday night when Tauzin called Baucus. The senator's statement said the White House was involved in the agreement.

The disclosure of negotiations came near the end of an up-and-down week for the administration and its allies on health care.

Earlier setbacks:

Congressional Budget Office estimates showed early versions of two major Senate bills were either too costly or failed to make a large enough dent in the ranks of the uninsured. Republicans seized on the reports as evidence that Democrats were losing traction.

They leapt again when it was disclosed that House Democrats were considering a wide array of tax increases to finance their legislation, including an income tax surcharge, a tax on employers based on the size of their payroll and a value-added tax, a form of a national sales tax.

House Democrats on Friday unveiled draft legislation they said would cover virtually all of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured but it came without a price tag or an indication of how it would be paid for.

Major provisions of the 850-page measure would impose new responsibilities on individuals to obtain coverage and on employers to provided it. It also would end insurance company practices that deny coverage to the sick and create a new government-sponsored plan to compete with private companies.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she hopes the legislation can clear the House before lawmakers leave for their annual August vacation.


View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, ABC.net, Whitehouse.gov, Flickr, Google Maps

At Least 85% Of American People Support Heath Care Reform & Public Option (Poll Results)

NY Times (article)----

(See NY Times/ CBS News Full Poll Results)----

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.

That paradox was skillfully exploited by opponents of the last failed attempt at overhauling the health system, during former President Bill Clinton’s first term. Sixteen years later, it underscores the tricky task facing lawmakers and President Obama as they try to address the health system’s substantial problems without igniting fears that people could lose what they like.

Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.

But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.

The poll, of 895 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Mr. Obama and many Democrats have argued that a public plan would be essential, in the president’s words, to “keep insurance companies honest.” But Mr. Obama has also signaled a willingness to compromise for Republican support, perhaps by establishing member-owned insurance cooperatives instead.

It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive.

But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.

Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly six in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all are insured, with four in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.

And a plurality, 48 percent, said they supported a requirement that all Americans have health insurance so long as public subsidies are offered to those who cannot afford it. Thirty-eight percent said they were opposed.

In a follow-up interview, Matt Flurkey, 56, a public plan supporter from Plymouth, Minn., said he could accept that the quality of his care might diminish if coverage was universal. “Even though it might not be quite as good as what we get now,” he said, “I think the government should run health care. Far too many people are being denied now, and costs would be lower.”

While the survey results depict a nation desperate for change, it also reveals a deep wariness of the possible consequences. Half to two-thirds of respondents said they worried that if the government guaranteed health coverage, they would see declines in the quality of their own care and in their ability to choose doctors and get needed treatment.

“It is the responsibility of the government to guarantee insurance for all,” said Juanita Lomaz, a 65-year-old office worker from Bakersfield, Calif. “But my care will get worse because they’ll have to limit care in order to cover everyone.”

When asked their opinion of specific changes being considered in Washington, three-fourths of those surveyed said they favored requiring health insurers to cover anyone, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. Only a fifth supported taxing employer-provided health benefits to help pay the cost of coverage for the uninsured. And there was deep uncertainty about whether employers should be required to either help insure their workers or pay into a fund for covering the uninsured.

Three of four people questioned said unnecessary medical tests and treatments had become a serious problem, suggesting that they would support calls by health researchers for a payment system that would better reward appropriate care. But an even higher number, 87 percent, said the inability of people to have the needed tests and treatments was a serious problem. One in four said that in the last 12 months they or someone in their household had cut back on medications because of the expense, and one in five said someone had skipped a recommended test or treatment.

The poll found that Americans were far less satisfied with the cost of health care than with the quality of it. Mr. Obama, who has emphasized the need to reduce costs, has found an audience for his argument that health care legislation is vital to economic recovery. Eighty-six percent of those polled said rising costs posed a serious economic threat.

Yet only a fifth of those with insurance said the cost of their own medical care posed a hardship. And only a fourth said that keeping health costs down was a more urgent need than providing coverage for the country’s nearly 50 million uninsured. That was a notable change from a Times/CBS poll taken in early April, when 40 percent said that controlling costs was more pressing.

Sources: NY Times, CBS News