"Not a Harry and Louise Moment, a Thelma and Louise Moment"
One of the many amusing lines from President Obama's wrap up of the health care summit at the White House. Here's something of note: Obama pointed to Rep. Jim Cooper saying we can get health care done. This is something we noted here the other day and it belies easy stereotyping of fiscal conservatives as obstinate. Here are some highlights from the Obama Q & A:
Ted Kennedy looked great and talked about the importance of the issue. Mitch McConnell asked about the Conrad-Gregg proposal on reforming Social Security. The prez kicked it back to Congress saying that Medicare and Medicaid is the 800-pound gorilla. Henry Waxman talked about the importance of trade offs and willingness to negotiate. Rep. Joanne Emerson, the kind of moderate Republican Obama will need on many issues going forward, was very complimentary about the discussions as was Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the pivotal Senate Finance Committee.
Most interesting was Dan Danner of the National Federation of Independent Business. The group was a key opponent of the Clinton plan in 1994 and while he didn't pledge to support Obama he wasn't hostile either. For Obama's part he told "bleeding hearts" they needed to take cost control into account just as fiscal conservatives needed to know they couldn't control costs just by "throwing seniors off of Medicare."
No shortage of critics on the left have whacked Obama for being too bipartisan but I don't see how a conference like this can do anything but it's hard to imagine how today's session was anything less than helpful in promoting universal health reform. It's not impossible to imagine meetings like these become a practice that's continued by future presidents.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The conference today was an important and necessary political event. The hard battles are ahead but framing a national consensus for a plan with universal coverage and cost containment is a good starting point.
March 5, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?!? This one took a couple reads to figure out.
March 5, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being bipartisan is near impossible, but Obama is doing one heck of a job trying. Sure, he him and Rush Limbaugh won't be going to the movies or having lunch any time soon, but if he can get enough Republicans on his side, hopefully the country becomes a well-oiled machine once again.
March 5, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Rahmbo's line about "bipartisanship" in which he says Americans give you credit for trying but you don't have to succeed.
March 5, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we getting "universal health reform" or universal healthCARE?
March 5, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want the universal healthCARE. But just improving on Bush's prescription drug plan, and expanding SCHIP would be a step in the right direction. Also shoring up the gap between Medicare short and long-term care and actually regulating health care companies so their business model is more about supplying coverage than denying it are all good starts.
I wish we could throw out everything and start over with universal health care, it seems much easier than reforming our current system. But how can one storm the health-care Bastille and whose heads do we cut off? A health care revolution or a slow health-care transition? We'll get the second, but I wish for the first.
March 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope they don't try to ram through some Blue Dog monstrosity that undermines both employer paid plans and Medicare and leaves Americans with nothing but orders to go buy an insurance policy (from AIG? can they do health insurance as well as they do everything else?). This isn't like the stimulus bill. You can't just throw together everything but the kitchen sink and call the muddle that results "reform".
"Reform" is a nothing word. It tells you nothing about what you're going to get. It's a gutless word because it takes no stand. It's a passionless word because it makes no commitment, sets no goal, and contains no value.
Yes, incremental is better than a "reform" bill that makes the situation worse. I hope we don't get a smoked filled room and a done deal with no input from the public.
March 5, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doh, reply got separated. Here's it again:
"I hope we don't get a smoked filled room and a done deal with no input from the public."
From this summit's format, it looks like it will be pretty transparent, I hope. BTW, your 'smoke-filled room' when talking about health care is subtly funny.
March 5, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I hope we don't get a smoked filled room and a done deal with no input from the public."
From this summit's format, it looks like it will be pretty transparent, I hope. BTW, your 'smoke-filled room' when talking about health care is subtly funny.
March 5, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
this was for bluebell
March 5, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that Republican Senator Charles Grassley appears again as "bipartisan". He seems to be truly so. Grassley has been consistent throughout his career to his principles, not his party. He is a true conservative. He is also honest, fearless and a quiet, hard worker. I am from Iowa and a life-long Democrat, but I respect Senator Grassley and am proud of his personal standards.
March 5, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iowa is a great example of a swing state that elects both true blue liberals and genuine conservatives to the Senate. Both Harkin and Grassley work in the interests of the people of their state not merely for their own expedient short term interest or the expedient interests of their party. Every time someone tells me that no Blue Dog could get elected in a swing state without sounding like a Republican I think of Tom Harkin.
March 5, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I thought was interesting was on Whitehouse.gov, they had live feeds HERE to each of the six meetings going on simultaneously. Pretty huge change from how things used to run.
March 5, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes time, folks. But the eternal optimist (I'm not "sunny steve" for nuthin') would hope that Obama's ultimate achievement will be to return true bipartisan debate to the U.S. Senate: with the result being that this chamber agrees to disagree, after meaningful efforts to reach common ground. The outcome would be allowing bills to move to a vote in most cases, thereby removing the logjam of cloture and anonymous holds that has stymied real progress toward solving the myriad of problems that are bedeviling our nation.
March 5, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is important to note that the real reformers were NOT initially invited to the White House Conference. Those who have the most ability to really solve the problem; those who can produce universal medical care, not just universal access to health insurance are the advocates for SINGLE PAYER (government) financing i.e. do away with the waste exploitative, for profit insurance companies. This is also the only proposal with a large and active grassroots support. AND this is they only proposal which can limit spending and save money. Rep Conyers sponsor of HR 676 and Dr. Oliver Fein, MD President of Physicians for a National Health Program were invited within the 24 hours of the start. This is a small start on challenging the conventional wisdom of the limits of reform. If you thought Lehman Bros. had fiduciary responsibility for your retirement, and Countrywide and Washington Mutual were protecting your home, you would be a fool to depend on United Healthcare and Anthem/Blue Cross to protect your health.
March 6, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink