Blogs and Stories
Running Scared
Ron Edmonds / AP Photo
Forget the public option. The real news is that Democrats may pass a bill. Adam Clymer on how the failures of 1994—which spurred a GOP takeover of Congress—could make reform happen this year.
On Tuesday, a key liberal value (the so-called public option) was beaten in the Senate Finance Committee. Public support is declining, especially among the elderly. Republican attacks on imaginary issues like “death panels” make it clear their party sees a political opportunity as at least as important as the responsibility to debate a serious issue. It sometimes seems like 1993-94 all over again. Indeed now as then, only one Senate Republican seems supportive (Olympia Snowe today, James Jeffords yesterday) and no House Republican will sign on. And the Finance Committee, once again, is the last panel to finish its work, wrangling through attacks on “rapacious” insurance companies and a “Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”
As one senior House aide put it, “Almost everyone keeps repeating that they know health-care failure cost seats in 1994.” That’s the view in the Senate, too: “Coming up empty-handed is the worst outcome,” said Senator Richard Durbin.
But the differences are more important. Start with the Finance Committee itself. In a few days, it is certain to approve a bill that the Congressional Budget Office says will insure 94 percent of the public and provide that individuals get insurance. Fifteen years ago, in July 1994, the panel rejected the idea of near-universal coverage. A key difference is the committee’s chairman. Max Baucus may be one of the left’s favorite punching bags, and he may have deluded himself about whether Chuck Grassley would ever come around. But he finally pushed a bill on the table and has persuaded his Democratic colleagues he is determined to get one passed. (On Tuesday, Baucus said the public option was a good idea, but voted against it because he said including it would keep the bill from getting a filibuster-proof 60 votes.) Fifteen years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan didn’t think health care was all that important and he waited for Bob Dole to come around and support it. Dole finally has signed on, but in 2009, not 1994; it’s only now that he’s said “We probably should have passed the Clinton bill.”
There are other important differences. The most remarked on are President Obama’s decisions not to send up a bill of his own but to let Congress do the work and to make deals with the drug industries and the hospitals to support the legislation, instead of opposing it as the drug industry did in 1994. Without Bill and Hillary Clinton’s pride of authorship, he may be more comfortable with compromise than they were. But to be fair, by the spring of 1994 there were no Republicans for Clinton to compromise with, even if he’d wanted to. There don’t seem to be any these days, either, but compromising with moderate Democrats is in the cards, whether it’s done by congressional leaders or the president. In any case, Obama comes from a stronger position, 56 percent approval according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll compared to 42 percent for Clinton in July 1994, when the issue went to the Senate floor.
Congress is different, too. In the Senate, there are now 60 Democrats. That is not a filibuster-proof majority because of Ben Nelson’s unpredictability, but it certainly is filibuster-resistant. In 1994, there were 56 nominal Democrats, two of whom formally switched to the GOP in 1995. This time, furthermore, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, has made it clear Democrats will go for the 51-vote reconciliation route if they can’t get 60 votes, even if that means dropping some parts of the bill. In 1994, Robert Byrd, at the height of his influence, blocked that approach.
In the House, the numbers are not very different: there are 256 Democrats now, and there were 258 in July 1994. But the leadership has changed significantly. Speaker Tom Foley was not excited about health care and he was patient with his committees and their chairmen. The best chance for a bill died when Dan Rostenkowski was indicted and had to step down from his perch as chairman of Ways and Means. Speaker Nancy Pelosi drives her chairmen hard, cares about the issue, and approaches its politics skillfully.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Teddy Reveals All, Almost
Adam Clymer is a former Chief Washington Correspondent of the New York Times and author of Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.
My Advice to Kanye
Adam Clymer is a former Chief Washington Correspondent of the New York Times and author of Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.
The Last Reunion
Adam Clymer is a former Chief Washington Correspondent of the New York Times and author of Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.
September/30/2009
We all know that our country needs to pass the Public Health
Care Bill as soon as possible.The blue-dogs and the crooked
republican senators and any politician that opposes the Public
Option has to go.We will just vote them out of office.
We also need political reform.We need to stop the
lobbysts from corrupting the politicians in Washington and in
any other place in the USA.Barack Obama won the presidency
because the voters were told that all citizens will have the same
Health Insurance that the senators have.
If for any reason we end up without Public Option:
--- We will vote these politicians out of office.
--- In the future all politicians salaries will have to be
cut 60% because these politicians are overpaid
a great deal.
--- Politicians will have to buy their own Health
Insurance because the USA government will not
pay for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------
True.
"... the voters were told that all citizens will have the same
Health Insurance that the senators have."
Which is an absolute bald-faced lie. I can only assume you believe it because you know nothing about the bill. Time and time again, Congressmen have been asked if they would agree to be covered by the same plan as we would be, and time and time again they flatly refused. They're covered by their own Federal plan.
It really depresses me to see this much ignorance.
"... the crooked republican senators ..."
So tell us: how many of Obama's appointees have had to be dropped because they failed to pay their income taxes, or other financial misdealings? Just today, a major fund-raiser for the Hillary Clinton campaign was sentenced to 24 years in jail.
The major premise of the story is wrong. The Democrats didn't get voted out in 1994 because they FAILED to get health care passed. They got voted out because they TRIED.
It doesn't seem like they learned anything from it.
Exactly right. Thank you.
False.
Yeah, this whole, "we lost seats in '94 bc we didn't pass health care" is revisionist history if I've ever heard it. By accepting this argument, you'd have to be operating under the assumption that since the Democrats "couldn't get the job done", then the Republicans would if you'd simply vote out the Democrats.
What the GOP needs to remember is that they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections because they were perceived as obstructionists to reform, and on the take, remember Tom Delay? Whats different now?
Good point. What's the rush to pass a reform bill that will not take effect until 2012 or 2013? Right now it's about politics more than it's about reform.
If you didn't vote as a Democrat, then you have absolutely no right to come here and pontificate on exactly why others voted as they did. Revisionist history indeed. It's writtten by the winners, in that case the Republicans.
Uh, oh.....looks like Connie47 knows who everyone voted for now!
Seriously though, everyone has the right to "pontificate" on here as they wish. How one votes is not a prerequisite to rights under the First Amendment, including, of course, freedom of speech.
Is someone seriously saying, that in 1994, the Democrats lost because they didn't get the job done? If they had wanted reform of the medical care system, they had to know Republicans would not do it. So why would they not vote in the Democrats again to keep trying to get the job done? Any statement made that says the Democrats lost in 1994 because they didn't pass the reform defies all logic.
@devilsadvocate,
Try rereading my post. I'm not the one who said they knew the mind of every voter. This quote is NOT from my post:
The Democrats didn't get voted out in 1994 because they FAILED to get health care passed."
What I said was the author of that line had no right to tell Democrats why they voted the way they did.
It's not revisionism just because you disagree with the policies. Health reform has been a major part of the Democratic platform for the past two decades. Your argument is invalid.
"... then the Republicans would if you'd simply vote out the Democrats. "
Now you get it.
And the flaw to your argument: they've successfully gotten reelected by promising health insurance reform.
President Obama will have a healthcare bill this year because his motive for running for office was and is sincere and quite simple, really. He wants to improve the standard of living for the citizens of this country and improve our image throughout the world. Healthcare should not be a political issue.
Healthcare is a political issue when taxpayer's money is involved. The problem with the President is that he never submitted his plan to Congress, and now he's between a rock and a hard place. His numerous speeches are without substance and the American people have cracked the facade.
If Congress can produce a bill that contains medical malpractice reform, businesses being allowed to form pools for purchasing health insurance, allow people to buy across state lines and keep their insurance when they switch jobs, and real oversight by an independent panel on the insurance companies, whether private or public, then I think there would be support from the majority of American people. The public plan must be deficit neutral, since this economy can not sustain indefinitely more debt, or all the taxpayers will end up feeding the pig (government) in exchange for starving the other pig (insurance companies)
Carole65: As I have pointed out many times, a single-payer health care system like those of every other industrialized country could save up to $1 trillion a year in medical costs.
I know this is off the table, but even a decent public option could significantly cut costs.
If those things (insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, etc.) were in the bill, would the majority of Americans support it? I think the majority of Americans support some sort of single payer system or at least a public option.
What we have here is not the fabled Moral Majority but an extremely persistent, nasty, and vocal minority.
Carole65, stop with the 'issue is when taxpayer's money is involved'. You Reps didn't give a rat's a## when trillions were and still are spent on the two wars we are in now! Besides EVERYTHING is paid with taxpayer's money/
We, the citizens, don't decide what we want it to pay for, unless we march on Washington! If you don't trust our government, why don't you emigrate to another country? Oh, yeah, you probably couldn't live anywhere else, could you?
Not only that, but almost nobody in Congress has read the bill (I can't imagine that nobody has), and they refuse to put the bill online so the rest of us can read it, either.
They know full well that if we really knew what's in the bill, we'd be ten times more opposed than we are now. Good work, Carole65!
AlanD2: How's that working out in those other countries? Rationing, delays, ... In Canada, you can expect to wait 2 to 3 years for a necessary operation. In Britain, they just pull the plug.
Newswoman: "We, the citizens, don't decide what we want it to pay for, unless we march on Washington!"
Which is exaclty what we did.
I don't trust the polls on this issue as many people are feeling burned out, but still know that our system of health care is literally killing people.
Polls have been wrong before and the way the question is asked is as important as the answers its draws.
How interesting that Dole now supports healthcare reform. Just imagine the number of people from his home state that might still be alive if he supported the Clinton bill.
I may be wrong but I think the WH has a bill sitting atop Rahm's desk and when the final Congressional version is sent to the WH, it will be returned, marked up like a high school term papers, with attachments explaining where it went wrong and what it must contain.
Americans NEED and are waiting for a bill that reflects their needs not those of the insurance compaines. If Dems fail again they might as well close the doors to their party.
Close the doors on the Dems? And do what? Put the republicans back in? You have got to be kidding. If you think the people's needs are not met now, then you suggest we should go back to the days of Bush. Not making sense there.
So looks like the Dems are in a good position on this. Even if they fail to get the job done on medical care, it sounds like they'll still have your vote anyway.
devilsadvocate: They will still have my vote. Anybody who thinks Republicans will do a better job for average Americans on any issue is - to put it delicately - crazy.
Republicans: The party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
Picachu,
Maybe just run a new Dem in the primaries and get rid of the blue dogs. I'm not registered to any party, so I've never voted in a primary. Just a thought.
As if the Democrats don't have their "fair-share" (popular term these days) of wealthy, elite donors and supporters. But you make a good point. Your "of the rich...." comment is applicable to any successful political party, including the one ruling (their term, not mine!)......errr....in power now.
I'm sad you've deferred your decision on who to vote for in future elections based on who a particular political party determines for you, rather than making that decision based on who is actually on the ballot in the particular election. It requires less critical thinking effort on your part, but you do get to spend a lot less time at the ballot box casting your vote! How valuable an extra five minutes are?!
Some people (and I cannot speak for you on this) would be totally lost in the voting booth if the political party of each candidate was not listed next to the name of each candidate on the ballot. It would be a shame to require of a voter, that much level of thought when they're casting their ballot.
The Republicans had 8 years under Bush to do something about health care reform. They did nothing. The Democrats have repeatedly tried and have been repeatedly hindered by "death panel" & other blatent falsehoods. So I ask you D-Advocate, who would you put your trust in? the ones who care enough to actually try or the ones who sit by saying "I got mine"?
devilsadvocate: If and when moderate Republicans are allowed back into the "big tent", I may reconsider my vote.
I am not holding my breath.
"If Dems fail again they might as well close the doors to their party."
Sounds good to me. A little less socialism goes a long way.
AlanD2: "Republicans: The party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich."
To which I reply: "Democrats: the party of the poor - which is why they're doing their best to see that more of us become poor."
devilsadvocate: "As if the Democrats don't have their "fair-share" (popular term these days) of wealthy,..."
George Soros, Michael Moore, Ted Turner, John Edwards (who made his fortune suing doctors on trumped-up evidence, in carefully-chosen venues), ... You can fill in some more names.
AlanD2: "I am not holding my breath."
That's good.
I sincerely doubt the accuracy of any poll that says there is weak support for a public option. Wonder who might of financed such a poll? Also, it does not make sense repubs would gain in election because reform did not get passed. If anything should be clear to the American people right now it is what the republicans stand for - corporate profits and irresponsible govt financial management, and lack of proper oversight of corporate greed. I don't think people are going to go back to the republicans. We know they are responsible for the mess we are in, at least those of us who are not half senile and listening to their lie machine crank out more BS.
It would be clear, except all the fear the GOP has placed in people with the phrases "killing grandma" and "death panels".
The scare tactic Republicans won this round with their lies and false advertisments, Just now I heard a reub on C-Span openly lie and say that the elderly would have their Medicare cut by 500 billion under any Democratic healthcare plan, Its sickening that they can stand in the peoples house and lie to them without rebuke from the other side because of the rules, This gives a false sense that what was said is true when its easily proven to be a lie, But I digress, This fight is not over, There will be a public option in the final bill or else the situation will be remedied through reconciliation, Much like Bush used to pass his tax cuts for the uber rich .
This has to be done , The American family cannot afford $1000 a month health insurance, That is the ones who can be insured, many cannot even get any, To do nothing and let the insurance corporations fix healthcare like the Republicans would do will see costs double, more people refused, and the quality of care go to the shitter. On the otherhand a public option will reduce costs by more than double, cover everyone, and quality will be raised , Stop being scared people, The boogieman is a Republican and as long as their corporate masters pull their golden chains they will forsake the American public everytime !
"Its sickening that they can stand in the peoples house and lie to them without ..."
OK, now I get it: anything you disagree with is a lie.
So is this: "On the otherhand a public option will reduce costs by more than double, cover everyone, and quality will be raised "
Please explain to us how you can cover more people, with better quality, for less cost.
I keep telling the Republicans that this is not a conservative era like the 1980s and 1990s, but a reform wave of the type that comes along every 30-40 years. They are going to be in for a shock in the 2010 and 2012 elections, I can promise them that much.
We all know why the Baucus Bill is a POS so there's no need to repeat how some Dems have been bought by the insurance companies.
"They are going to be in for a shock in the 2010 and 2012 elections, I can promise them that much."
I'll agree to that. The Republicans won't know how to handle a 95% majority in the House and the Senate, and the White House besides.
Unlike Democrats, however, they'll figure it out.
Devilsadvocate raises a good question a couple of posts above. If the party affiliation was not printed on the ballot, would people even know for whom to vote? I've disagreed with him on a number of issues, but I think he's got something here.
I'd love to see a ballot with only names on it and no party affiliation. Force the voter to do some homework before election day or stay home (or just play pin the tail on the candidate).
Thanks for the mention, connie47.
Also on a sidenote, I was dismayed during a recent interim election (probably in 2006 or 2007) to hear so many voters complaining that there were just too many candidates and too many offices to cast a vote for on the ballot. Talk about taking Democracy for granted!
What burns me up is to see people going into the voting booth with the election book in hand, then spend 20 minutes trying to figure things out.
The time to "figure things out" is the days and weeks before election day.
newswoman: We don't ONLY vote for the party or the person. If a reasonable Democrat showed up on any of my ballots, and I thought he was a better pick than the Republican, I'd vote for him.
(It just hasn't happened yet. Every time I think of voting for a Democrat, I think "Jimmy Carter".)
connie, you are so wrong. We don't just vote for the person, we vote for the PARTY too. Every candidate is affiliated with a party and holds with the party's platform. It's naive to think that you are voting only for the person.
"I'd love to see a ballot with only names on it and no party affiliation."
Not too long ago (a few decades), voting machines had two levers (besides ones for all the candidates), one marked "Democrat" and one marked "Republican" - so you wouldn't be bothered trying to figure out who to vote for.
I understand these were really popular in Illinos.
Healthcare reform, specifically giving everyone access to health care regardless of financial or employment status, will benefit everyone, even those already on Medicare. It will have positive impact on:
Court costs (paid by taxpayers) and court traffic
Liability insurance premiums (auto, homeowners, business)
Med Mal insurance premiums (costs passed on to you and me)
Business operational costs
Age discrimination on the job
The real estate market
Labor efficiency
Competitiveness
Entrepreneurism and our place in the world economy
Seriously, it's that big.
Check out this blog post for more details http://buythebookcv.blogspot.com/
This is what the public needs to know. This is what anyone who says they are not affected by health care needs to know.
This bill is bogus without the public option. Obama need to stick to his conviction or he will be labeled a flip flopper on this issue. If Hillary was the President, we would have a single payer reform.
Conserv = if Hillary WERE the president, not WAS. I am appalled at the spelling and grammar on these blogs. They don't seem to be important anymore.
AlanD not true anymore your in the party of limousine liberals.
Somebody's been watching Faux News again.
Republicans: The party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich
Last time I checked, I know it was a couple months ago and could have changed but...
Bill Gates-Rich
Warren Buffett-Rich
George Soros-Rich
Hollywood-Rich
All voted and suport Dems. Maybe you mean the less rich?
Zero001: Here are a few of your "poor" Republican CEOs:
After UnitedHealth Group paid fines of $1.4 billion for various frauds, they fired CEO William McGuire. McGuire took with him a golden parachute of $1.1 billion, the largest in the history of corporate America.
Stephen J. Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, has made over $750 million in salary, bonuses, and other income in the last 4 years.
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation:
* Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
* Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
* Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
* Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
* Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
* U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
* WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation:
* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
A few other Libs to add to your list
Robert Rubin-Rich
John I served in Vietnam Kerry-Rich
Charlie Rangel-Rich
Bernie Madoff -Used to be Rich
Ted Kennedy - Used to be Rich
Wall Street-Rich
I'd say the rich cronies club (Rep) vs the self-made rich (Dem)
GUNSLINGER OBAMA
The fastest shooter out of the Midwest
Is taking on bad guys whenever they screech
And stands for no nonsense from the rabid right,
Reaching into his holster for another speech.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.