President Obama is considering giving a major speech detailing what he would like to see included in a bill to overhaul health care, a senior White House aide said Wednesday.
And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said.
“We’re entering a new season,” senior adviser David Axelrod said in a telephone interview with Politico. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.”
David Axelrod told CNN that the president is looking at the possibility of a speech as “one of his options” in pushing forward his health care agenda after returning next week from vacation at Camp David, Maryland.
Obama has outlined broad principles for what he would like in health care legislation, but he has left most details to leaders in Congress. Now, White House aides said, the dynamic has changed.
“We’re entering a new season,” Axelrod said. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done.”
Another administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity when discussing strategy, said the new phase was “driven in part by the actions of some in the GOP,” including Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.
The official added the White House believes those actions indicate that these two key Republicans, who are part of a bipartisan group negotiating a health care bill, “are essentially walking away from the table.”
The official also said that “now is the time to begin to pull together the various strands and solutions from the four bills that have been marked up and other proposals. … Basically all the cards are on the table.”
It’s unclear still what form the president’s speech would take. If he decides to give an address, he could do it from the Oval Office or before a joint session of Congress. But the administration official said no decisions have been made.
“The president is considering all of his options on how to advance the debate and get reform passed. This includes possibly laying out a more specific vision,” the official said.
(Source: CNN / Politico)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
23 Responses
I think any health care plan must address the following:
1) Immigrants do NOT get free health coverage (as they do now)
2) We must be allowed to keep our current coverage if we so choose
3) Some sort of option for children who are out of school (and no longer covered by my health coverage) but not yet working on their own
4) Freedom to pick my own insurer, and take that coverage with me to a new job
5) Ideally (although perhaps not realistic) – true competition from multiple providers, across state lines.
Why shouldn’t immigrants get the same health care as anyone else. Germs and viruses don’t check whether you were born in America. As it is, lawful immigrants (meaning anyone with a green card) can qualify for Medicaid – and that includes many frum Jews. Non-immigrant aliens (such as persons from Israel who come here as tourists looking for work) do not qualify for Medicaid (a policy based on biblical tradition – see the Jewish version of Sodom). If somebody is in the US and gainfully employed, why shouldn’t they be included in our health care system???
Banning the restrictions on pre-existing conditions, or prohibiting insurerer from discriminating based on bad demographics (e.g. not wanting frum families of child bearing age), is critical for our community. In the FEHBP (the civil service plan, probably the largest single plan other than Medicare and Medicaid), insurers agree to insure anyone regardless of the liklihood of their filing a claim.
Mr. Obama (who is actually a conservative in economic matters) is a bit paranoid about the need
of paying for any plan. To get a really good health plan, we need a president who has no sense of fiscal responsibility (either that, or convince Americans who are dying to be content with hospice care and painkillers, which isn’t likely given how Americans see fatal diseases as personal enemies to be battled).
Obviously, the headline should be ‘Open Season’ For Obama on Health Care.
How telling! Obama is considering giving a speech. He is overplaying that card to make his point. His speeches are sugar coated, feel good, lies which are getting played out.
Obama has no game. Marx was right (Obama is not a Marxist) in that the greed factor in seeking greater profit, necessary in capitalism, will eventually make the system like a snake who ends up consuming himself right up to the tail.
Politicians are not fully to blame. In my opinion, it is among those who benefitted (earned) the most, where we find those who killed the country.
Akuperma
Obviously, I meant *illegal* immigrants should not get free health care. They should also not be left to die in the streets.
Let’s work on reducing healthcare costs first and then worry about coverage options. If the cost stays the same, all that is being done is shifting the cost of increased coverage to the taxpayers.
How about some tort reform? That could truly bring down the cost of healthcare in a huge way. Don’t bet on the democrats even mentioning it. Howard Dean was honest (for a change) when he admitted that the reason it was excluded from Obamacare was that they didn’t want to make more enemies. Read between the lines. They don’t want to lose the huge contributions from the trial lawyers.
#5 mythoughts
You may find this interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
Yes, tort reform is needed. And agreed, it would bring down the cost of healthcare. But I think the lack of medical coverage, and holes in existing coverage, is a far more pressing issue.
Here’s a clinical study to that effect:
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
Re #5 and # 6:
As a cost of total health care costs, medical malpractice is virtually a non-issue.
“The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits are relatively insignificant proportions of health spending in both the U.S. (0.46%) and Canada (0.27%). In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16.”
Anderson GF, Hussey PS, Frogner BK, Waters HR (2005). “Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world”. Health affairs (Project Hope) 24 (4): 903–14.
Furthermore, according published news reports only yesterday, the percentage of total healthcare costs represented by malpractice suits have declined in the past 4 years, since the cited study, due to tort reform legislation in some states.
#4 – Illegal immigrants, who are legally non-immigrant aliens who overstayed visas or ignored border control, don’t get any free medical care.
If indigent, emergency medical care will be billed to them but the bill is uncollectable. They aren’t covered by Medicaid. As it is, most illegal immigrants are employed (those that aren’t tend to go home) and get billed. As most illegal immigrants have taxes deducted from their pay, but can’t file for a refund, the cost is probably not significant.
The issue is whether their children who are native-born American citizens should get care.
Your figures don’t take into account the defensive medicine that our doctors have to practice. If we introduce tort reform as well other efficiencies into our system, we could make a significant dent.
#8. Seriously, how can you make the statement that MOST illegal immigrants are employed and have taxes deducted?
Leaving all the other variables out of the equation as to why illegal Mexicans have added to the ruin of our country, while some DO work at fast food restaurants, etc., by what evidence can you cite that MOST of them work, first of all, and that of those who work, the majority work in places that take taxes out?
Do you have an accounting system the government does not have?
#7
Your figures don’t take into account the defensive medicine that our doctors have to practice. If we introduce tort reform as well other efficiencies into our system, we could make a significant dent.
#8 akuperma
“The cost of treating illegal aliens amounts to nearly $11 billion a year, according to calculations done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)”
Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html
BREAKING NEWS:
Registered Republicans will be denied healthcare, as suggested by the RNC:
http://washingtonindependent.com/56844/obtained-the-rncs-health-care-survey
# 11 Mythoughts – I would like to see some statistics on your issue (The news reports I cited # 7 say they don’t exist).
There are a lot of often quoted figures that seem to have no basis in fact. In anti-administration PR, for example, I often see the figure of 10% being bantied around as the percentage of healthcare costs represented by malpractice awards, a claim that is 21.73 times the actual figure of 0.46%!
Similarly, claims that current propodsals would increase funding for abortion, deny existing policy holders the choice to stay where they are, create “death panels” or specifically mandate care of illegals are all rubbish – simply untrue as amatter of easily verifiable fact.
But that said, I still think the overwhelming issue is a MORAL one, and one that makes this country look pretty shabby next to ALL other western democracies.
Though healthcare delivery differs from single payer systems, like that in the UK, to multi-party private insurance systems, like those in France and Switzerland, ours in the ONLY country where access to healthcare is not deemed a right – a RIGHT – for all people. In contrast, ours is a system:
– Where huge numbers of people have no insurance at all;
– In which insurance is on the for-profit corporate model, so that each time a policy is given to you they are betting they will make money on you (France has well over 200 medical insurance companies – operating on the not-for-profit model);
– Where families can and do literally lose everything because of healthcare emergencies;
– Where it is perfectly “acceptable” for insurance companies to deny coverage because of “pre-existing conditions;” and
– Where for all the claimed “freedom of choice,” most people who do have insurance are locked into a 1 to 3 insurance plan cartel, made up of those few insurers available through their employer. (The French system has over 250 companies – a person is permitted to select any one of them, no matter where he or she lives or works)
#14
My comments were strictly focused on the need to lower costs before we think about expanding coverage.
Why are you so against tort reform? Why are you reflexively backing the President’s proposal without taking into account all means to possibly lower costs?
Your list of complaints about our healthcare system has some valid points, however I have yet to see any detailed explanation of how we would pay for Obamacare.
I am in favor of limits on tort. That would bring the insurance costs down not only for the doctors but also for the hospitals and the drug companies.
It would also put lawyers like akuperma out of business but that is all right.
justajew, the reason why there are holes in health coverage is because of unlimited tort. This would lower the cost for the insurance companies.
Just look at President Bush. He made sure to pass limits on tort for no-fault. My newly licensed son was able to get coverage for our car for as little as $25.00 per month. Without limits on tort for no-fault, that would have not happened.
#17 Bubby
You really can’t compare car insurance with health insurance.
My father’s friend has colon cancer. Once he lost his job, he lost his insurance coverage (this was before COBRA was extended).
His family is now bankrupt. He b”h is well enough now to work, and has a new job, but guess what – no insurance company will take him, because he has a pre-existing condition. Oh, and since he doesn’t have coverage, neither does his two daughters.
But I’m sure some tort reform will fix him right up. Once the insurance companies are getting sued less, they’re bound to start accepting clients with pre-existing conditions, right??
# 14 – I happen to be for tort reform – I just think it is a ghost issue that diverts attention from what I see as the more important healthcare problems.
Nearly 59 years old, I have held my views on American health care since long before I ever heard of Obama – I am not “reflexively” following anybody, thank you. I have spent time and have experienced healthcare in other countries, including in Canada and in Eretz Yisroel. It has long been my view that its healthcare system is a serious blot on the American social structure.
# 15 – Mythoughts, I happen to be for tort reform – I just think it is a ghost issue that diverts attention from what I see as the more important healthcare problems.
Nearly 59 years old, I have held my views on American health care since long before I ever heard of Obama – I am not “reflexively” following anybody, thank you. I have spent time and have experienced healthcare in other countries, including in Canada and in Eretz Yisroel. It has long been my view that its healthcare system is a serious blot on the American social structure.
Tort Reform is a major issue in healthcare. When you go to a doctor with any complaint they will do countless of unnecessary tests to protect them against any possible lawsuit that some lawyer will think of. All these unnecessary tests are exactly what are creating the huge cost of health care. A visit that should have cost $300 ends up costing $3000.00. If we have some tort reform you will see a major dent in the cost.
I dont understand how people are so blind to the fact that any sort of govt involvement in our healthcare means we have lost a major chunk of our liberty. I have seen the programs in other countries and THE USA’S CARE IS GREAT!!!
When can we start saying yemach sh’mo on this guy?
#23 Mark
Lose the crazy talk and let’s have a serious conversation. Ask any senior citizen if they feel like they have lost a “major chunk of their liberty” by having Medicare. Let me know how that works out.
As a conservative who favors an open market, why do you prefer our existing system, where employers get to choose the insurance rather than the individual, and the selection is limited to the few available carriers in the state rather than true competition across state lines?