Health Care Summit: Not So Great Expectations

There’s little bipartisan agreement on what President Barack Obama’s health care summit on Thursday will truly be, though low expectations are popping up across the political spectrum.

“What’s disturbing is the continued media reports that [Democrats] already have their plan to move forward … no matter what the result is of the meeting,” Sen. John McCain told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday. “That certainly gives anybody reason for cynicism.” When asked what would be on the tip of his tongue as he entered the Blair House on Thursday, he simply said, “Start over. Start over [and get rid of] all of the sweetheart deals.” He later said the country is with him on that point: “The American people are very smart. That’s why two-thirds of them want to either stop or start over.”

The so-called “Louisiana Purchase” and Nebraska “Cornhusker Kickback,” which involved the federal government picking up part of the Medicaid tab in states where certain votes were needed, have led to bellowing about corrupt back room deals. Many of those sweeteners were noticeably absent in the bill Obama’s proposed Monday.

But despite making some changes, the President’s proposal largely resembles the Senate’s health care bill. “Now the Republicans’ mantra is ‘starting over.’ That really is not a realistic request, I think,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at a press conference down the hallway. “They don’t like some of the things in the bill that came from the Senate and had some reservations about ours.” The people, Hoyer said, want to move forward on health care, not backwards.

Politicians and the press anticipate squabbles about many potential roadblocks — whether or not they were present in Obama’s proposal – such as a government-funded “public option” (absent), “Cadillac taxes” on high-cost plans (present) and language determining whether federal dollars could subsidize abortion (present but too wishy-washy for Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak who potentially has the votes to block the bill in the House).

“This bill is just a warmed over version of the bill that’s already been rejected by the American people,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee. Others put that sentiment more warmly. “A good percentage of it is pretty much the Senate blue print,” said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat who made a point of supporting the president’s kicking-out of his state’s previous kickback.

Many Republicans believe the summit is just for theater as the President, they contend, is already moving ahead to push the bill through budget reconciliation – a parliamentary procedure that would only require 51 votes but could potentially be vulnerable to unlimited amendments. “They’re obviously planning it,” McCain said.

Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Tuesday told reporters that if such a move were to be used, the House would first have to pass the Senate version of the health care bill before the fixes could be made in reconciliation. “You can’t have reconciliation to a bill that’s never passed,” Conrad warned. The House has been pressing the Senate to go ahead with the fixes before they pass the Senate bill, in an effort to ease what will surely be a tough vote in the House. Conrad ruled out pushing the entire bill through the budgetary process as nearly impossible to accomplish given the looming threat of hundreds of GOP amendments and points of order as to the germaneness of provisions to the budget. (Under the so-called Byrd rule, all provisions of reconciliation must be directly related to the underlying bill and, if not, may be challenged).

Using the budgetary bypass “would be the ultimate trick to get votes,” Alexander said. “The reason for the American people rejecting the health care bill so far is because of the tricks. So I think if the Democrats try to jam the bill through [using] this strange process to get votes, then they’ll just be guaranteeing themselves a political kamikaze mission in November.” On the other hand, not passing health care might prove just as deadly to Dems.

Related Topics: Barack Obama, health care summit, john mccain, kent conrad, lamar alexander, Senate, Barack Obama, Congress, Democratic Party, Health Care, Republican Party, Senate, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • gysgt213

    Bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan is that all you people know? WTF? Bipartisan is why millions of Americans don’t have health care, those that do don’t have adequate health care and millions are one sickness away from bankruptcy. When are you in the media going to understand that JNS and start asking our leaders to do some thing. Any thing. Bipartisanship has becoime code for we can’t do anything.

  • gysgt213

    Check out Robert Gibbs face on the Huffington Post right now. This is what bipartisan gets you.
    .
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

  • afguy

    Oh, they’re going to live right up down to my expectations.
    .
    This process is gonna suck, suck stronger, then, after a pause to get their breath back, suck some more… and conclude with some sprint-to-the-finish suckery…
    .
    But, cheer up… at least it’ll be bi-partisan suckitude.

  • Matt

    What else is Obama supposed to do but together a back-up plan when Republicans themselves are openly skeptical about the summit and whether anything will come of it? POTUS has a right to cover his rear…

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • kevin

    Could someone ask the Republicans: When did the American people reject this bill exactly?
    .
    Most of them don’t even know what’s in it, but when they’re told about the component parts — and not, say, the bizarre allegations of the Republicans about “death panels” and “government takeover” and all that — they overwhelmingly like it.

  • gysgt213

    “Could someone ask the Republicans: When did the American people reject this bill exactly?zzzzz’
    .
    Kevin-The bill was too long before. Now its too short. Tomorrow it will be on the wrong paper.

  • afguy

    And don’t forget the importance of holding you mouth right when you take it out of the copier. That could be a deal-breaker…

  • afguy

    Oh, yes, the vital importance of the political gamesmanship is not lost on me…. can’t tell you how many lives that will save in the end…

  • gysgt213

    I’m sure the union workers who made the copier are making way too much money and breaking the company there for we can’t afford health care.

  • the committee

    Pointless irrelevant Republican minority cat is sad it is pointless and irrelevant.

  • maverick2k9

    Sen. John McCain told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday. “That certainly gives anybody reason for cynicism.”
    .
    Yeah right.. And what about doing an about turn with your own position on Cap-n-trade, DADT and deficiet commission?? That should give anybody reason for optimism??
    .
    When will swampland bloggers stop quoting discredited politicians (both Repub and Dem)???

  • maverick2k9

    ohh.. Forgot to add there was yet another about turn by McCain. Seems he was tricked into supporting the Bank bailout !!

  • http://penni4urthoughts.wordpress.com penni4urthought

    Surprised no one has mentioned the “let’s start over” otherwise known as the “let’s waste another 6 months of American tax dollars” idea the right keeps pursuing. Yes Kevin when did the American people reject this bill? Also, when did the Republicans ever support it?
    Thursday shall be interesting.

  • acameronw

    Anticipated dialogue from The Summit:

    Obama: The bill allows parents to keep their children on their health insurance policies until they’re twenty-six. are you against that?
    Boehner: Well… we, um…
    Obama: The bill creates insurance exchanges so that small businesses can pool their resources and get insurance for their employees at lower costs and lower premiums. Are you against that?
    Boehner: It’s not that we, er…
    Obama: The bill outlaws denying insuring people who have pre-existing conditions. Are you against that?
    Boehner: Well, no. Not really -
    Obama: The bill creates a commission that keeps insurance companies from arbitrarily raising rates by thirty or forty per cent.
    Boehner: That’s big government… No, I guess not.
    Obama: The bill makes sure people can’t be kicked off their policies because their medical bills are too high.
    Are you against that?
    Boehner: No, but -
    Obama: The bill covers about thirty million Americans who currently don’t have insurance, saving thousands of live and untold misery? Are you against that?
    Boehner: Not if you put it like that. But -
    Obama: And we provide subsidies for people who can’t afford insurance. Are you -
    Boehner: SOCIALIST!

  • afguy

    Hadn’t thought of that… non-union-made copier, then, to get GOP buy-in to at least read the program?

  • stuartzechman

    Boehner: And this bill forces every individual to buy expensive insurance –something this President repeatedly told the American people he wouldn’t do before he got elected– or else he’ll sic the IRS on you.
    .
    Obama: We like tort reform, too…you guys have good ideas.

  • afguy

    I’ve seen fewer “flip-flops” out of a hooked bass…

  • Cliff

    Can you ask Steinmetz two questions for me?
    .
    1) Who gives a good god damn about bipartisanship?
    .
    2) Who gives a good god damn what failed Presidential candidate and known liar John McCain has to say about a god damned thing?

  • afguy

    Don’t hold back, Cliff, tell us how you REALLY feel…

  • Cliff

    I’ll mellow out after I get some more Arrogant Bastard ale in me, but for now I’ve had it with this centrist pablum they keep pushing on us.
    .
    “Oh noes!” they (TIME et al) say, “the government is broken!”
    .
    What is the solution?
    .
    “More bipartisanship!” they cry.
    .
    It’s sickening.

  • afguy

    For some reason, I see one solution as a set of locked doors to the Senate Chamber, one very strong dude with a good-quality whip or cat-o-nine-tails, and about 2 hours of free, uninterrupted time to work with.

  • afguy

    Either that, or shut off the commodes water and air conditioning in the chambers, with NO chance to leave until they come to an agreement.
    .
    Come to think of it…

  • Cliff

    Well, if you’re going to lock them in with a sadist and a cat-o-nine-tails, you may as well toss Geithner in there too and see if that’ll get him to do his f–king job.

  • homerhk

    SZ, I merely make this observation that it is usually those people who complain loudly that Obama hasn’t done enough to state his preferences or be clear about what he wants who then complain the loudest when he does exactly that – viz. the mandate, the excise tax etc.

    As always, it’s only good policy and politics if you happen to agree with him. Otherwise he is simply betraying you. There doesn’t seem to be any minute acknowledgement that the positions he holds are genuinely held and that, for example on the mandate, he might have actually been persuaded that this was the only way to do it? No, i guess not, it’s only a breaking of a campaign promise, nothing else.

  • afguy

    Hey, as far as I’m concerned, he gets his very own DEDICATED sadist and whip…
    .
    Can’t stand him, Bernancke, Paulson OR Greenspan.
    .
    Randian jackasses!!

  • stuartzechman

    homerhk:
    .
    it is usually those people
    .
    I’m not sure why you’re making this observation in response to me, when it is “usually those people”.
    .
    “Complaining” also isn’t the same thing as acknowledging that policy is bad, or that politicians don’t honor their rhetoric for whatever reason.
    .
    it’s only good policy and politics if you happen to agree with him. Otherwise he is simply betraying you.
    .
    So, in other words, when he does what we consider to be good policy or politics, we’re satisfied with the work he does as a public servant, and when he contradicts himself and does the wrong thing, or serves other interests, we consider that a betrayal of our interests.
    .
    There doesn’t seem to be any minute acknowledgement that the positions he holds are genuinely held and that, for example on the mandate, he might have actually been persuaded that this was the only way to do it?
    .
    I think that you’re confusing me with someone else. I think that many of the positions Obama holds are genuine, ideological principles held by many in his caucus –the New Democrat Coalition. Many of those people, unlike liberals, believe in bipartisanship for its own sake. It’s their political philosophy. It’s wrong, but it’s an article of faith amongst them, like free markets are for conservatives.
    .
    I also think that many of the positions he espouses are attempts to succeed politically, as many politicians do. Obama is another politician, not some saint among them. Obama can lie, and mislead, and be less than forthcoming, and act with relatively little integrity compared to his rhetoric, because these are the normal, usual, everyday behaviors that occur in our capitol.
    .
    Perhaps he was persuaded, perhaps not. Perhaps he meant what he said during the campaign, perhaps not. Given the numerous flips he’s made in such a short time (the telecom immunity vote, the rhetoric against backroom dealing with industry, the adoption of Bush II policies with respect to detainment, etc.), it’s very probable that he wasn’t terribly forthcoming about his intentions during the campaign, when he was forced to run to the left of Hillary to gain base support for so long.
    .
    I’m not saying it’s impossible that he genuinely changed his mind, I’m saying that it’s more likely that he said what he felt he had to at the time, and, unfortunately, he has a habit of promoting whatever position he takes rather eloquently, and so reversals are quite noticeable.
    .
    No, i guess not, it’s only a breaking of a campaign promise, nothing else.
    .
    You’re really personalizing this, homerhk, as if you have something invested in this man’s character. There’s no reason to be so invested. This person isn’t your friend or your family member (as far as I know), and so attempts to comprehend why and how the person to whom we gave the job of President sometimes fails to promote our interests must include the public questioning of his integrity, when it is warranted.
    .
    The entire way that you couch this, as if it was your job to believe in and defend your Leader whom you trust is rather disturbing and anti-democratic, homerhk. Barack Obama is there to do a job, nothing more, nothing less. It appears to me as if you tend to idealize this guy. There’s already too much “Commander in Chief” language being thrown around for my tastes as an American –Bush II was spectacularly revolting in exploiting it. There’s already too much worship of dynasty in this country. The last thing we need to do is idealize our political class.
    .
    If more of our elected officials in Washington were simply concerned with doing their jobs, and if more citizens were concerned with examining their records to see if this was the case, and more journalists were concerned with the substantial reporting of the record, we’d have better government.
    .
    Why don’t you try not to personalize criticism of the President that touches his honesty, homerhk, when it’s made honestly and in good faith by non- political operatives? My wife comes from a country that suffered under Communism for half-a-century, and she finds these kinds of expressions of public distrust from ordinary citizens to be a wonderful part of American culture, something to be proud of, something indicative of our freedoms and our confidence.
    .
    As long as it’s genuine, I think you might want to stop characterizing criticism of the President as the product of character flaws, and start considering it the product of democracy, homerhk.
    .
    Thanks for considering this.

  • square1

    “Start Over”

    Seriously, is there a more moronic talking point? The GOP can’t come up with policy alternatives, so instead they suggest that Congress simply “start over,” as if wasting another year will magically produce legislation that could not be drafted tomorrow.

  • chrisnbama

    As best I can tell, there are two consistent themes I hear bubbling up from the conservasphere:

    1. Tort Reform, and

    2. Buying insurance across straight lines.

    I’ve heard some ancilliary stuff, but it’s usually a variation of the aforementioned themes.

    The fact is, the republicans do not want to take a comprehensive approach to reform. They are so skeptical of government, that they would rather take decades of trying various private market based experiments than settle on any approach that smells of “big government” (read–comprehensive).

    What we will see on Thursday is a clash of worldviews: the democrats advocating for a comprehensive approach, and the republicans suggesting something piecemeal and likely woefully inadequate.

    It’s a shame though that democrats are unable to maintain a consistent message at least through this week. Steny Hoyer is already out there suggesting that a scaled down, minimalistic approach may be required. That may be true, but I wish he would STFU until after the dust has settled from the summit.

  • apr2563

    John McCain has to always be asked his opionion. It is a law. He is so mavericky that he can change his opinions on issues at will. He knows the “boys and girls on the bus” will never question his maverickyism.
    He will have to be on some Sunday program this weekend to take a mavericky stand.

  • apr2563

    make that opinion.

  • apr2563

    Hey send in diaper Dave Vitter. He might enjoy the action and vote for HCR.

  • apr2563

    The Republicans have had years when they were in full control. They have done nothing to promote HCR even incrementally. The only reform they passed was the Medicaid D plan for perscriptions which was a big kiss to pharma.

  • apr2563
  • stuartzechman

    apr2563:
    .
    There’s going to be a lot more of that sentiment, if this thing passes.

  • freeinpa

    Universal Health Care was introduced by Richard Nixon. The Democrats led by the unions killed it.

  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa:
    .
    Please link to a source for that information about Nixon’s universal health care plan and its Democratic opponents.

  • http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com lawyermommy

    Using the budgetary bypass “would be the ultimate trick to get votes,” Alexander said. “The reason for the American people rejecting the health care bill so far is because of the tricks. So I think if the Democrats try to jam the bill through [using] this strange process to get votes, then they’ll just be guaranteeing themselves a political kamikaze mission in November.”

    What a silly quote. The Republicans are the tricksters!

    When this “Reconciliation” story first aired on Swampland, I made a comment stating that the Obama well intentioned “Reconciliation” effort would be undoubtedly unsuccessful, and provided the reasons for my contention.

    I am sure that members of Obama’s team must have been expecting these responses from the Republicans.

    To date, there has been no sustained and/or strong effort to explain and sell the proposed “Reconciliation” plan to the public.

    All we hear as usual are the objections to it by the “Party of Never”, who of course have nothing better to offer than to ask for the entire bill to be dropped and the process restarted—how idiotic and how utterly transparently political and self serving.

    Also, I do not know why McCain keeps getting interviewed. He lost the election in large part because he was not deemed worthy to lead this country.

    Despite his constant re-election in his home state of Arizona (in large part because he never has any real competition in the primaries), that state is in shambles-the borders are porous, unemployment sky hight, education in the toilet etc. etc.

    Helloooo…. because McCain is a Senator does not mean what he vomits is worth seeing in print.
    I am no fan of this Mavericky clown. He stands for nothing these days but to fan the ever growing anti-Obama Republican driven movement.

    A movement which is aimed at stopping every initiative of this President.

    The casualties of this mindless and contrived opposition to everything proposed by the President, are the American public. But what do the old Guard Republican Washington fixtures care!

    As long as Obama can be blocked at every turn these old greasy pack of the old guard will continue their feigned efforts to act in the best interest of the country by proffering idiotic and unworkable options to the repair of a broken and bleeding Healthcare system.

    They stink.

    LM

    http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

  • adajam

    Stuart and freeinpa;
    .
    Here are a few links referring to the Nixon Health Care Plan:
    .

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/11/28/22163/democrats-health-plans-echo-nixons.html
    .
    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
    .
    http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_nixonkennedy_healthcare_plan
    .
    Some interesting facts to take from these articles:
    .
    Nixon was a staunch supporter of health care reform since his days as a congressman. The plan he introduced on his 1974 State of the Union address was eerily similar to the one proposed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, Clinton’s plan was labeled as socialized medicine. Few labeled Nixon’s plan as socialist.
    .
    (start of quote) “Nixon’s call for an employer mandate to provide health insurance as part of his planned universal health care coverage for all citizens was seen as inadequate by many democrats in congress.” (end quote) This is not to say they obstructed or killed the bill.
    .
    Labor unions furiously lobbied against the plan.
    .
    Ted Kennedy, who at first attacked the plan as a deal to benefit the insurance companies, later agreed to a compromise deal to get the legislation through Congress.
    .
    The legislation died mainly due to the Watergate scandal and Nixon having to distract his attention to dealing with the issue. The country lost confidence in his agenda. The union’s efforts to derail the plan under Nixon’s administration succeeded, hoping to get a better deal with a different administration.

  • adajam

    BTW, since right wingers and Republicans love to classify HCR as socialized medicine, here is the definition of Socialized medicine: “A system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the US Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. And the Veterans and US military hospitals are also supported this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain.” http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25521.
    .
    The clue here is “all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals”. Last time I checked private medicine is still practiced in this country.
    .
    another definition from Merriam Webster:
    .
    medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized+medicine.
    .
    We have had socialized medical services in this country for the last 60 years. Are we a socialized medicine country? Absolutely not! Let’s call it like it is, and let’s stop this nonsense of “socialized medicine”, when intelligent people know this is a misnomer, being used solely as a fear tactic.

  • stuartzechman

    I’m glad I revisited this thread, thanks so much for your input!

  • adajam

    Thank you, stuart.

blog comments powered by Disqus