Sunday, August 16, 2009

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News: "Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers."
HHS Secretary Sebelius said the public option is "not the essential element" of the administration's proposed policy. That's because the real essential element is greatly increased federal control over health insurance. The public option will return to the agenda if the Democrats do well enough in the 2010 elections. For now, the administration is bowing to political reality. It has been clear for at least a month that the Blue Dog Democrats were listening to the private insurance industry on the public option. Then the public outcry kicked in. This health care takeover was shaping up as a debacle for the Obama administration and the Democrats. Now they will probably get a bill--and it may turn out to be a good one--and can declare victory, living to fight another day.

That is, unless most of the independent voters have irrevocably decided, based on the health care debate, that Obama isn't what they thought he was.


Don Nordeen said...

Health Care Reform: Obama is Irrelevant

President Obama is no longer relevant because he hasn’t defined a plan that has meaning to the citizens. Many of his statements are incorrect, misleading or inconsistent with the facts, as the fact-checkers have written. His statements that the health care reform is necessary to reduce the deficit is not credible. Moreover, Obama is likely to sign any health care legislation that reaches his desk which means he is not a significant decision maker for reform.

What is relevant is the content and language in the various bills in Congress. The current discussion is focused on HR 3200, drafted by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). This 1000+ bill includes provisions that could result in government intrusion throughout the health care industry and into personal liberties as well. The bill shows the scope of what government intrusions the Waxman Committee is willing to foist on the American people.

The bill loses the important perspective in the U.S. Constitution, which is to limit the power of the federal government and provide citizens protection from government. In this spirit, any health care legislation granting powers to government should be specific and limited — not expansive, wide-open, ill-defined provisions. HR 3200 includes many such provisions: end-of-life, avoidance of what is covered and what is not covered, approval of hospital and operating room expansions, control over residency programs, real-time access to individual’s finances, direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer, Doctors – the government will tell YOU what you can make — just to pick a few. The devil is in the detail that the politicians are talking about. Powers to commissions and committees must be specific and limited. What is not prohibited in the bill is permitted. For example, the anti-abortion advocates should be very concerned. This issue is demagogued by politicians by stating there are no provisions regarding abortion which means that payments for abortions would be permitted. The legislation must be clear and specific about what is prohibited.

A paper which identifies many of the ambiguous provisions Obama Administration’s Health Care Plan: HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives illustrates that the bill is not what the politicians are describing. The document provides an internet link to HR 3200, and contains 10 pages of bullet points with page number and section references to HR 3200. Because of language in HR 3200 is not specific and limited, it is subject to different interpretations. Use the page number and section number to read the HR 3200 provisions summarized in a bullet. This organization has chosen one such interpretation. I reference this document without comment as one document that may help people understand how intrusive HR 3200 has the potential to become.

HR 3200 appears to go well beyond 1984 — more like 1984 plus 25 !

My wife and I have written a short statement of objectives for health care reform which is available at Commitments for Health Care Reform.

Technology said...

Caved already! He didn't last too long.

Beth said...

I wouldn't advise looking to the Liberty Council for unbiased information on HR 3200. One of the howlers from that paper:

"Sec. 2511, Pg. 992 - Government will establish school-based “health” clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"

Politifact found this to be so untrue that they labeled it "Pants on fire!"

A 1000-page bill is long, but the pages have really big margins. It's not that hard to go to and actually look through the actual bill.

Don Nordeen said...


Thanks for your comment and a reference on Liberty Council.

I referenced the Liberty Council paper only as a way to identify a number of provisions in HR 3200 for personal review of the language. If the language is specific and limited, organizations with different points of view should have similar interpretations and projected consequences.

The fact that different organizations project different consequences (perhaps worst or best case in their views) suggests that the consequences are not certain and predictable. Basically unknown.

Your example illustrates. Are school-based "health" clinics only buildings or will content be specified? Or if content and subject matter are to be specified, who will make that determination.

Or choose an analysis by another organization to help identify the pages and sections that may not be specific and limited. Determine for yourself whether or the the future results are well defined.

If the future results are not well defined, the experience with government programs is that they grow more intrusive with each passing year — just like ambitious board of directors of owners associations do.

My point is that for citizens to be protected from ill-defined future results, the provisions in the bill should be specific and limited.

The same is good medicine for owners associations. The authorities of the board should be specific and limited.

henry young said...

Why can't just those why pay taxes get health b'out that Obama and the rest of the health care reform starters??? NO seriously, this I could be in favor of, but not just letting any old person that comes to America, even the illegal’s to get health care and our taxes go up the roof???? No, sure, I will cont. to fight this...