Democrats Hope Summit Will Revive Healthcare

Experts speculate about Obama’s bipartisan healthcare meeting

February 17, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Two Sundays ago, before the Super Bowl, President Obama showed up on TV. He announced a "healthcare summit" on February 25, a "bipartisan" affair, and said he wants it televised.

That was one of the first official things the White House had said on healthcare since mid-January, when Democrats lost their supermajority and their whole agenda for reforming healthcare in America seemed to disappear into a Capitol Hill purgatory.

The president's proposal suggests that the White House is going to keep pushing reform. But it also reveals a tension that will play out publicly if the summit does occur. Democrats know that Americans are upset about all the backroom deals that took place last year on the healthcare bills, and their hope is that a big, open event will quiet some of those gripes about "transparency." At the same time, the GOP greeted the idea skeptically, and both parties have very strong feelings about healthcare. So the notion that the summit will somehow lead to a bipartisan breakthrough, after months of jabs and blows, seems pretty wild.

But that doesn't mean it can't serve a purpose. What it could do is give Americans their clearest look so far at Republicans' ideas for changing healthcare. For all the chatter, most of what's known about Republican ideas still comes from two places: a thin proposal filed by GOP leaders last fall and Sen. John McCain's platform from the 2008 presidential campaign. The summit could clarify differ­ences between the two parties' approaches.

One of the biggest differences is over the scope of reform. Republicans say they want a more incremental approach, one that's cheaper and less reliant on government mandates. But that has its limitations. As the Congressional Budget Office said last year, the GOP plan would insure only about 3 million additional people, compared with more than 30 million for any Democratic plan. "[Republicans] don't believe as much in government," says Gary Claxton, director of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation's healthcare market project. "To get a lot of coverage requires a lot of subsidies, which by definition means taking away from people who have it and giving it to people who don't. That's not a big part of the Republican platform."

Another concern is that the Republicans' preference for handling reform one step at a time could actually be more disruptive than a comprehensive, all-at-once plan. The Democrats' plan is big, experts say, in part because it has lots of safety bumpers like subsidies to help protect consumers from unexpected ­changes. "If you do a lot, if you're very comprehensive, then reform itself is going to feel incremental because things move in relatively small ways," says Deborah Chollet, a senior health policy economist for the nonpartisan Mathematica Policy Research. A piece-by-piece plan, on the other hand, has no such protections, so fixing one thing could break something else. That means that Republicans, who spent most of the past year attacking the Democrats' plan, may find themselves defending their own come late February.

Tags:
healthcare reform,
healthcare

Reader Comments Read all comments (25)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

is to go farther to the right. This is why Obama's summit now is a good idea----at least before the passing real reform with 51 votes on reconciliation before November, assuming the spine can be mustered to do that.

At the summit, you will not find ANY Republican touting ANY THING except their calls for tort reform and "selling insurance across state lines" (the incremental negation of state insurance laws).

This is a spectacle we Americans need to see.

Muser of NM 9:00PM February 18, 2010

If, as I suspect, the Republicans are going to continue gaming the system on February 25, let's follow the Harkin idea and let the Republicans filibuster to their hearts content. Then the majority of the people will realize the stupidity of their ways. Let the Harkin idea be voted on and kick in: 57, then 54 and finally 51. It's encouraging to note that 11 Senators signed on to the public option. I still say,the House idea of placing the insurance under Sherman and melding it with the existing Senate proposal is the best idea and would be the legislation fairest to the taxpaying public.

Jack Golding of KS 3:57PM February 18, 2010

I keep saying the same thing about health care reform in this country. REAL reform was torpedoed from the start by private insurers and Big Pharma, who saw their gravy boat as much as sunk if they didn't launch the torpedoes first--hundreds of millions of dollars spent on lobbying, campaign contributions, and an advertising blitz to prevent single payer and its feebler sequel, private option, from having any chance of success. There went all opportunity for BIG savings in the cost of health care in this country, the claim of "socialized medicine" (made by those who obviously have never experienced it first hand) scaring the bejeebers out of those who are easily fooled into thinking what corporate interests and Republican allies want them to think.

Any resuscitation of the health care reform issue thus will start with one arm tied behind its back like Rush Limbaugh's brain. So the band aid measures will be the topic of the day during the summit--tort reform, insurance exchanges, interstate purchase of insurance, electronic records, fee for success not service, and so on through a rather pathetic list the collection of which won't come close to lowering costs enough, improving portability in case of job loss or change, or preventing the gravy-boaters from running off with our money at every opportunity.

We are quite a spectacle internationally. We're the big spenders when it comes to national defense, homeland security, nation building, and foreign aid by the carload to countries which will cooperate with us. On these, we spend more than the rest of the world combined. Yet when it comes to figuring out how to fix a broken health care system that could benefit all Americans, we show ourselves impotent in the face of corporate opposition. Spending twice as much per insured person is the least we can do to keep the gravy boaters happy. What's good for business is good for America, right?

Ron W. Smith of UT 3:44PM February 18, 2010

advertisement

Latest Video