Experts Predict an Intense Battle Over Obama's Healthcare Reform

President Obama's healthcare forum made clear there is a long way to go

March 9, 2009 RSS Feed Print

President Obama's healthcare forum at the White House was designed to get Congress started toward enacting comprehensive healthcare reform this year. Obama convened a daylong series of meetings Thursday, which included leaders of the healthcare industry and senior administration officials. But the forum made clear that the process has a long way to go. Despite assessments that quality care is too expensive and beyond the reach of millions of Americans, there was little consensus on specific legislation to fix the problem.

Obama said it's vital to address "one of the greatest threats not just to the well-being of our families and the prosperity of our businesses but to the very foundation of our economy—and that's the exploding cost of healthcare in America today." But he conceded: "Each of us must accept that none of us will get everything we want, and no proposal for reform will be perfect."

Obama administration officials say all the key players are now in place within the government to get the ball rolling. The president this week named Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be secretary of health and human services. Obama also named Nancy-Ann DeParle to direct the White House Office for Health Reform. DeParle had headed the Health Care Financing Administration (now called the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) under President Bill Clinton.

Obama's emphasis marks the start of a long-range effort to overhaul the entire healthcare system by the end of this year, according to senior administration officials. For starters, the president has proposed setting aside a $634 billion,10-year reserve fund as a "down payment" to help pay for universal coverage and strengthen the system. An estimated 46 million Americans currently are without health insurance.

The end result remains unclear. Administration officials will probably defer to Congress and let the House and Senate come up with their own versions of healthcare legislation, as they did with the recent economic stimulus.

Pollsters say the rising concern among Americans is affordability, with universality taking a back seat. And today the public seems more willing to give the federal government the dominant role. A CBS/New York Times poll in January found that 59 percent of Americans said the federal government should provide national health insurance, while 32 percent said it should be left only to private enterprise.

Obama and his senior aides are convinced that the nation is eager for the White House and Congress to take on the issue, even more so than at the start of Bill Clinton's administration in 1993, when the last effort at comprehen-sive reform failed. "Stakeholders" who fought against change 15 years ago "are now part of the conversation," says a senior Obama adviser who is at the center of formulating White House strategy. The official also says both Democrats and Republicans seem to want reform this year.

Yet there are so many special interests involved, and so many Americans aren't sure what system makes the most sense, that the battle over healthcare reform will be intense, and it's only just beginning.

Tags:
Obama administration,
healthcare reform,
Barack Obama,
healthcare

Reader Comments Read all comments (119)

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

Ben of AZ, I think YOU miss the mark - of the meaning of being a human being. With your point of view, I would be afraid to meet you in a dark alley were I to have the last crumb of food on earth. Rather than let me share it with you, I am certain you would steal it from me, should you feel more fit!

Crumb Sharer of RI 10:29PM March 26, 2009

First the M.D's argument is infantile at best, and the college student has missed the mark. If it is the case that you have been diagnosed with some "unrelated" and "random" serious condition, then the question still holds, "why is that sufficient justification for me to provide my tax money to help you?" How can you possibly assert the idea that I should be forced to pay for your ailment? I don't have a moral obligation to help you, just as I don't have a direct moral obligation to stop the suffering of some child in Africa. Buck up and accept the truth of the world in which you exist; you are going to always be subject to nature - you will get sick and eventually die- I should not have to be responsible for such random and natural thing. This may sound cruel to you, but I hold a strong objectivist view about how we should approach healthcare - and by "strong" I mean social darwinism!

ben of AZ 4:01AM March 19, 2009

As one of those poor people I take EXTREME offense to you comment. Can you see the rest of us way down here under your nose, you elitist ignoramus?

I am a full-time college student on a professional track, that's supposed to be the very best choice, right? I'm first generation, pulling myself up by my boot straps, bettering myself in a nation where everyone has equal opportunity to achieve the American dream, right? Who paid for your books and your medical emergencies and your trips home while you were in medical school, Mike? Your parents? Your family? Both of my small-business owner parents preform much-needed services in their community and still struggle to keep up with basic house repairs and my recently un-retired grandparents sure as hell aren't going back to work to keep up on the coolest technology. In my experience people who take the stance you do have never in their lives known the feeling of not having a safety net underneath them. You're coddled and spoiled.

I'm offered very basic, very simple health insurance through my university. Most of my needs are covered and my prescriptions are discounted. It was perfectly adequate until I was diagnosed with a serious condition that NONE OF MY LIFESTYLE OR HEALTH-RELATED CHOICES HAVE CAUSED OR COULD HAVE PREVENTED now I have been seeing specialists (not covered) and getting treatments (not covered) for over a year now. I have been bouncing back and forth between doctors who discredit calls from other doctors and re-order expensive procedures which yield the same results tossing me back to a very confused, very frightened, very broke square-one over and over again.

I work three on-call/part-time jobs on top my my studies, Mike. I don't even have time to do a proper internship in my future career because I have bills to pay. It will take me two months of one jobs pay to cover a recent trip to a doctor who only spent 8 minutes with me and gave me no new news or plans of action.

Even if I could get private help with a pre-existing condition, I would have to quit school and accept my lot in life at whatever job would allow me pay for that coverage (a total fantasy scenario) OR I could quit school and get government assistance because I'm not eligible for it now since I have the option of my university insurance. Staying under that maximum income limit will mean no savings, no future home-ownership, no choices. Have you ever tried to live on $1,000 a month, Mike? I dare you to give it a shot.

While single-payer healthcare will have its drawbacks I don't know how a professional in your field could begin claim that the current system works and still sleep at night. There are those of us out here who are doing the very best that we can. We are working our asses off. The "Welfare Queen" stereotype is convenient for someone like you. You're a victim blamer, Mike. A blindfolded parrot mindlessly repeating "patriotic" rhetoric. Grow the f*** up.

Proper Choices of MN 11:20AM March 16, 2009

Photo Galleries

Wildfires

Erratic wildfires move through the western states.

advertisement

Latest Video