RSS
Home
Democrats consider using reconciliation process to pass Obama's healthcare plan
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
You mean they are alive? Democrats, with solid majorities in both houses are considering using the reconciliation process to pass Obama’s healthcare plan.
The bill authorizing this procedure has been around since 1974 and has been used several times to pass major legislation such as Reagan’s Domestic Policy agenda in 1981 and even George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
Even so, Republicans are crying foul.
Many in the healthcare industry are worried that Obama’s healthcare plan might provide a lower cost government run alternative program, sometimes dubbed as “Medicaid for all”. This would make it difficult for private health insurers to compete and they fear they will be driven out of business.
Democrats, however, are motivated by statistics showing that the numbers of Americans who lack any coverage keeps growing—46.6 million in 2005, which was before the massive layoffs that occurred in the 4th quarter of 2008 and since then. Attaining 60 votes to pass the Senate seems unlikely at this stage, with Republicans holding firm in opposition, it seems logical to consider a legislative tool employed several times by Republicans to bring the legislation to an up or down vote.
The need for comprehensive Healthcare Reform has inspired recurring efforts since Harry Truman proposed a program in a speech November 19, 1945. Ted Kennedy then took up the mantle in 60's and 70's and wrote a book titled “Critical Condition”, while Hilary Clinton did so in 1993, while at this moment, both John Conyers (D-MI) and Jim McDermott (D-WA) have single payer proposals submitted to Congress.
But these efforts have continually been frustrated by a determined opposition.
Ronald Reagan participated in a viral marketing effort in 1961 called “Operation Coffee Cup” which was run by the American Medical Association. In the vinyl record he recorded, a youthful Reagan inveighed against the implied evils of “statism” and “socialized medicine”. While in recent memory, the Health Insurance Association of America ran television ads featuring “Harry and Louise” at their kitchen table discussing how the Clinton’s healthcare plan would result in deteriorating options and higher costs. The fact that none of this was likely to happen did not restrain them.
Some Democrats are still worried about angering GOP congressmen who oppose major healthcare reform legislation, but it seems that they should be even more afraid of the public. A recent Associated Press-Yahoo poll again shows that 65% of Americans support a Universal Health Insurance program where everyone is covered.
What Republicans are really afraid of seeing is a public program which might be offered at less than half the cost of current private or employer-based insurance with more comprehensive coverage.
Some in the GOP raise the fear that the business community won’t support this. But many companies have been crying out for relief because in a global trade environment they mostly compete with foreign companies who already have single payer healthcare which obviously doesn’t have to be included as a cost on their books. The truth is: In order to be financially competitive, we have to change.
Other arguments are downright loony. For example, the one complaining you wouldn’t have the freedom to choose (or keep) your own doctor. But this is a hollow argument because there is no such requirement forcing you to change doctors and aside from that, this assumes you already have coverage. Tell this to the uninsured. The health insurance industry seems to be saying that an abstract “freedom” is more important than a program which actually provides access to healthcare. Not only is this illogical, but you have to ask yourself: what kind of freedom is this exactly? It sounds like you will have the freedom to die because you are currently excluded from coverage or the freedom to needlessly suffer because you are out of a job and can’t afford to pay premiums.
Socialized medicine merely means we all band together to provide it to everyone. If we are going to ban organizations based on eliminating freedom of choice, why not start with corporations? Otherwise, drop the silly arguments and pass healthcare reform to cover everyone.
Related Articles:
Comments
