Is Pres. Obama Being Too Soft On The Health Care Reform Debate?

MSNBC----

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is seeing the downside of his light touch on revamping the nation's health care system.

Congressional Democrats are off to a halting start, blindsided by a high cost estimate and divided over how to proceed. The confusion has emboldened Republican critics of the administration's approach to its top domestic priority.

While too early to rule out eventual success, it seems Obama will have to be more forceful and hands-on.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who once was Obama's choice for shepherding the plan through Congress, said the chance that the legislation will pass is no better than 50-50. Those are fairly good odds, he said, for such complicated proposals that stir deep passions.

Joel Johnson, a former Clinton White House aide who lobbies for health care companies, was more optimistic. "This is probably right where it's supposed to be," he said.

"It's still a hard slog," Johnson said. "It will have some near-death experiences" along the way, which is typical for far-reaching, complex legislation, he said.

Lack of firm guidance:

Obama has given Congress leeway, trying to avoid the heavy-handed approach that helped doom a similar effort by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Obama recently told a Wisconsin crowd that he would not run roughshod over lawmakers with a "my way or the highway" approach.

But the lack of firm guidance from the president may have contributed to an unsteady launch by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The committee rolled out an incomplete bill in an effort to get action started and to show Republicans that Democrats had not made up their minds on every issue.

The strategy seemed to backfire when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the plan would cost $1 trillion over 10 years but cover only about one-third of those now lacking health insurance.

Democrats protested that the estimate overlooked important money-savers to be added later. But Republicans seized on the costly projection and the bill's half-finished nature, throwing Democratic leaders on the defensive.

Competing plans:

Competing plans abound in Congress, complicating Obama's task even though his party holds solid House and Senate majorities.

House Democrats presented 850 pages of draft legislation Friday that includes many of the president's priorities. It would cover nearly all the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured. It calls for a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, something that most congressional Republicans and some Democrats oppose.

Officials said Saturday that the White House, lawmakers and the pharmaceutical industry had struck a deal to have drug companies pay $80 billion to help narrow a gap in coverage in the prescription drug program for Medicare. The officials said that the agreement would have drug companies pay part of the cost of brand name drugs for lower and middle-income older people in the "doughnut hole." That term refers to a feature of the current drug program that requires beneficiaries to pay the entire cost of prescriptions after initial coverage is exhausted but before catastrophic coverage begins.

Obama seized on the deal as evidence that his efforts are gaining momentum.

"Key sectors of the health care industry acknowledge what American families and businesses already know — that the status quo is no longer sustainable," the president said, and noted: "We are at a turning point in America's journey toward health care reform."

Widespread public support:

Health care changes have widespread public support, according to a CBS-New York Times poll released Saturday. Almost two-thirds say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans while half that many think this is not government's responsibility. People are more divided when it comes to the effect of such a step on the economy and whether they are willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have guaranteed health care.

House leaders offered few details on how to pay for their plan, leaving tough debates for the summer months. Obama has proposed cuts in Medicare spending on hospitals, prescription drugs and other services, but a political consensus is far from certain.

Senate Democrats are more divided. The health committee, being run by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., is trying to regroup after the criticism prompted by the latest cost estimate.

The Senate Finance Committee, drafting a separate bill in hopes of more Republican support, is scaling back its ambitions for similar reasons. The CBO projected the cost of its original plan at about $1.6 trillion over 10 years, a politically unpalatable figure.

Trade-offs:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration is willing to accept committee changes, such as trimming federal benefits or cutting proposed subsidies for health coverage.

"These are exactly the types of trade-offs and decisions that are going to have to be made throughout this process," Gibbs told reporters Friday.

Obama has cast the need to revamp health care in dire terms. He says the nation may go the way of General Motors Corp. if the system's soaring costs and inconsistent results are not tamed. But the developments in Congress demand discipline — and the president and party leader ultimately must be the ringmaster.

"There will come a time, particularly on health care, when the president's active member-by-member lobbying will have its place, but it's too early at this point," said John Podesta, who headed Obama's transition team and presides over the Center for American Progress.

Robert Blendon, a Harvard professor who follows public opinion trends on health care, said people "still expect something big to come out of this. But they have significant concerns about taxes and the deficit."

Presidential adviser David Axelrod defended Obama's decision to let Congress work its way through the process rather than "delivering stone tablets" with directives from the White House.

"We have been engaged in the conversation from the beginning," Axelrod said in an interview Friday. "Obviously as this process picks up momentum, that will be more true."

Sources: MSNBC, Whitehouse.gov

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

76% Of Americans In Favor Of Public Option Health Care Plan!

Huffington Post, ----

New Poll numbers from NBC/Wall Street Journal produce two major and potentially conflicting story lines when it comes to the Obama administration's efforts for a health care overhaul. On the one hand, the American public overwhelmingly favors a choice between getting insurance coverage either through the private market or a government run option. Indeed, 76 percent of respondents said it was either "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."

With the public option being such a lightning rod in the current health care debate, progressive activists are already emailing around these numbers as evidence that voters are way ahead of the politicians. Certainly, the findings provide a boost of sorts to President Obama, who has stood by the public plan even as Republican opposition has crystallized.

That said, the president still has his work cut out for him. In the same NBC/WSJ poll, only 33 percent of respondents said they thought the president's health care plan, to the extent they knew of it, was a "good idea;" 32 percent said it was a bad idea.

In short: the administration has yet to complete the sale. An additional 30 percent of the public had no opinion of Obama's proposal for reform. But when read a description of the general outline -- requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, an employer mandate, tax credits for lower income families to buy coverage, and tax increases on wealthier Americans to pay for it - the number of respondents in support rose to 55 percent.

Sources: Huffington Post, NBC, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Newsweek, The Page, Day Life, MSNBC, Wikio

G.O.P. Using Inconclusive CBO Study To Derail Obama/ Kennedy Health Care Reform Plan....More G.O.P. Fear Mongering

Huffington Post----

On Monday afternoon, critics of a major health care overhaul seized on a report from the Congressional Budget Office showing that a Democratic reform bill could cost $1 trillion over ten years despite adding only 17 million Americans to the ranks of the insured. But the results are incomplete, and they know it.

The CBO findings made for a traditional attack based around fears that the government would spend larges swaths of taxpayer money with minimum systematic change.

"CBO makes it clear -- the Democrats' plan will force millions of Americans to lose the care they have now," Sen. Mike Enzi, the ranking Republican on the Senate HELP Committee, said in a statement. "Anyone who says that if you like the care you have, you can keep it under this bill doesn't have their facts straight."

House Minority Leader John Boehner sent out an email alert on the report, saying the Democrats "costly plan is exposed." His colleague, Minority Whip Eric Cantor, meanwhile said the CBO score card was "troubling when we're trying to save money that we would be calling for that kind of expenditure."

The CBO's findings, however, are for an incomplete piece of legislation, making the cost-per-coverage estimates much worse than they will ultimately be. Republicans on the committee knew this, according to Democrats. But they pushed for the bill to be studied by the CBO now. And when poor results came back, they ran with them.

"The reality is there are still some outstanding issues, including employer responsibility and a public insurance option," said a Democratic aide to a committee member. "Those are two outstanding issues. So what we did in a good faith effort to find bipartisan consensus, we did not include those elements because we are trying to find common ground. But Republicans wanted there to be a score even though, the reality is, if there is an incomplete bill you will have an incomplete statement."

Another Democratic aide to the HELP Committee member concurred, adding that Sen. Ted Kennedy's office, in an effort to "find bipartisan consensus with Republicans colleagues" filed the bill and allowed it to be scored by the CBO -- not expecting it to be used as partisan fodder.

Asked about these complaints, Enzi's spokesman Mike Mahaffey called his boss' statement "absolutely fair."

"This is a report from the CBO saying that it is going to cost a trillion dollars and it is only going to ensure net increase of 17 million patients," he added. "We are not the ones that scheduled a Wednesday markup before the bill is complete and the CBO report is complete."

Democrats both inside and out of government, while cognizant that the CBO's findings did not fully reflect the final bill, were nevertheless distraught that the numbers were now out in the public sphere.

"My impression was that for all the lawyers around, they didn't follow the first principle which is don't ask the question you don't know the answer to," said one high-ranking Hill aide.

Indeed, in private, White House officials were shaking their head at the development. Publicly, press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to distance the president from the legislation. In a statement after the CBO report release, he said, "this is not the Administration's bill."

The CBO's findings do create politically bad optics. In the end, however, the situation could be remedied when a full analysis is released sometime in the next week. Once the bill is scored with a stronger individual and/or employer mandate for coverage, as well as various other details, HELP Committee members fully expect the cost-per-coverage breakdown to improve significantly. For now, progressive activists in the health care debate are holding their breath, hoping that the next CBO findings have more resonance.

"If this was a true reflection of the bill, it would be bad," said one operative. "But it's not -- it's more like they graded a test halfway through the testing period. HELP is rushing language back to them and are hoping for new projections (that include employer and individual mandate) by Friday. That's pretty pie in the sky, I fear. They will revise it though."


View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, The Hill, CIO.com, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Republican Senator Richard Burr (NC) Introduces G.O.P.'s Counter Health Care Reform Plan....LOL

Last week Republican Senator Richard Burr (NC) introduced the G.O.P.'s Comprehensive Health Care Reform plan.

It's called the "Patients Choice Act of 2009" and is supposed to be a counter product to President Obama's Universal Health Care Reform agenda.

Their version sounds fine except for the small role government would play in helping to ensure that every legal citizen has access to quality Health Care.

You know I'm kinda puzzled by the G.O.P.'s sudden show of concern for the personal welfare of American citizens. Considering their previous record, one has to question their motives.

Why weren't these kind of "super" ideas introduced eight years ago while George W. Bush was still in office?

So....after eight years of controlling the house and senate with seemingly no interest in helping to provide quality health care for ALL legal citizens, now they roll out a "comprehensive health care plan"? Pleasssse!

Could it be that Republican Party leaders want us to think they are re-emerging as "The Party of the People"?

Perhaps or it could be another G.O.P. gimmick. No real substance, just empty rhetoric and another political gimmick.

But then again what do I know?

I'm just a registered voter NOT on Medicaid or Medicare, who wants to see sensible Health Care Reform finally take place in this country....hopefully on President Obama's watch.

By the way Senator Burr is running for his second term in the U.S. Senate.

He's currently the top contender and his popularity is growing.

Several months ago I was dealing with a major problem. As a Democrat I felt it was my civic duty to contact my NC Democratic delegation first for a possible resolution, however I was brushed off in a big way.

(Note: I'll write more about North Carolina's corrupt, dysfunctional, self-serving, Fraternity/Sorority style Democratic Party leadership at a later date.)

Determined to have my issue resolved, I contacted Senator Burr's Office in DC where I was referred to his Winston-Salem office.

I called the Winston-Salem office and a member of his staff answered.

Surprisingly this staff person took time to listen to my concerns and offered me some sound advice.

To his credit because of how politely his staff treated me on that particular day, Senator Burr earned my confidence.

I predict that Burr's going to win again or at least give his Democratic opposition (whomever that might be) a tough as nails fight.

Then again what do I know?





View Larger Map

Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Day Life, Politico, CBS News, The Fix, Daily Kos, Under the Dome, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps