 | |
|
| |
| Dr. Clifton Cleaveland | |
The role U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter will play in the national health care reform debate after his recent defection from the Republican Party is murky, say health care analysts and doctors.
As a former moderate Republican who often acted independently, the Pennsylvanian’s support for the Democrats’ more-ambitious health care reform proposals is not a foregone conclusion, said Dr. Cliff Cleaveland, a retired Chattanooga physician.
“I could see his support for certainly broadening coverage, but I could imagine his being opposed to health care proposals that moved in the direction of single payer,” he said.
If Democrat Al Franken’s contested bid for a Minnesota Senate seat is confirmed, Senate Democrats could have the 60 votes necessary to override a Republican filibuster that would stymie the Democrats’ health care agenda.
Some political analysts say a filibuster override might not be possible, with or without Sen. Specter’s vote.
“That assumes that every single Democrat in the Senate is ready to stop a Republican filibuster on health care, and I’m not sure that’s the case,” said Dr. Ken Ellinger, a Dalton State College political science professor.
Attempts to reach Sen. Specter on Thursday were unsuccessful. But he has said he will vote his conscience and will not be “an automatic 60th vote” for the Democrats, The Associated Press reported. He has expressed his support for a bipartisan proposal from U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Robert Bennett, R-Utah.
The proposal would create state-level insurance pools to offer private insurance plans. It would require almost all Americans to enroll in a plan, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which examines programs affecting low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said that plan has little chance of getting serious consideration and so may not end up being an option for Sen. Specter.
LEADING PROPOSALS
The leading health care proposals likely are to come from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Senate Health Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., though the proposals will have to be reconciled with input from other lawmakers and the White House, Mr. Pollack said.
A white paper that Sen. Baucus’ office released in November summarizes his plan, which would offer a public insurance option that would compete with private insurers’ plans.
An early version of the proposal also aimed to expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan, or SCHIP, said Jennifer Tolbert, principal policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit focusing on health care issues.
Republicans often opposed those features, particularly the idea of offering a public insurance option alongside private plans, which many equate with a move toward a single-payer system, she said.
Sen. Kennedy has not released details on his plan, but it is expected to be similar to Sen. Baucus’ proposal, she said.
“Until we see a formal bill from Sen. Baucus or Sen. Kennedy and we can gauge the reaction to that by members of the Senate, I think it’s still too early to know whether Sen. Specter’s party switch will have an impact,” she said.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” last weekend, Sen. Specter said that he would not support a health care reform proposal that offers a government-run public plan alongside private plans.
Republican pressure in the Senate Finance Committee may end up nixing that aspect from Sen. Baucus’ plan before it is finalized, Ms. Tolbert said.
Mr. Pollack said the party switch may allow Sen. Specter to support more liberal proposals without fear of getting voted out of office.
“I think his switching parties now gives him to freedom to vote his natural inclination,” he said.
Sen. Specter’s vote may not have as big an impact on the outcome of Senate votes because of some controversial language in the proposed federal budget, said Alwyn Cassil, director of public affairs for the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health Systems Change.
The budget would allow “reconciliation” on health care items, meaning a simple majority — 51 votes as opposed to a 60-vote majority — would be enough to pass health reform legislation. A 60th vote may not end up being decisive, she said.
“I’m not sure how much (Specter’s move) changes the political landscape related to the passage of health care reform,” she said. Reconciliation “means they can negotiate, they can talk, but at the end of the day they would not need Republican votes to pass legislation.”
Text Size:
This is precisely the reason that the Republicon Party must be crushed, killed, and destroyed. They will NEVER want the government to help ANYBODY get health care. They still throw tantrums over Medicare and Social Security...and it's been almost 45 years! This country NEEDS the choice of enrolling in a public health plan, but the Republicons will always desire to snuff that choice.
It is exactly that thing which Democrats love most but do NOT want for health care -- and the Republicans DO want, Marvin8...Choice.
Choice to NOT be forced to take another failed MediCare look-alike.
Choice to NOT be forced to stop their private insurance.
Choice to NOT be denied quality health care -- like they have now -- because of old age, expensive or specialized treatment, lack of "worth" to society, or a quota system that a National Health Service will impose on us.
That is all Republicans want...that thing Democrats clamor for and are willing to kill for...choice.
Choice. If YOU want National Health Service, fine. Take it. Enjoy it. Just don't force it on those who do not need or want it.
Unlike the Democrats -- who love total government control of everyone's life except their own -- we do not want it.
rolando -
Health care is rising twice the rate of inflation and within 8 years will be 20% of GDP, which is twice that of Canada or Germany. An employer pays over $1000 per month for an employee's family health insurance, which has more than doubled the past 10 years and so has the employee paid share. A major portion of the costs of the 50 million uninsured medical expenses (hospital ER, etc) are passed on to the insured premiums.
How long do you think this can go on, especially with millions being added to the uninsured list? We all reminisce about the good old days, but for health care those days are long gone.
So rather than figuring out why the cost of health care is rising and addressing those issues, the answer is to have the government manage it and taxpayers foot the bill. I pray the assumption is NOT that government involvement will reduce costs. To quote Margaret Thatcher "Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money" The "taxpayer" is not a money tree.
Sailorman- don't know what the solution is. It's obvious that the health care industry won't be reducing costs on their own since they keep running near double-digit increases. Neither will the do-nothing approach that the right keeps talking about. This tv ad that says call your congress and tell them to leave health care alone is a crock of bull- that's like saying don't call the fire dept when your house is on fire.
I don't have the answers either (if I did I sure wouldn't be here!) but I do know a few things. Two major expense items for a medical practice are liability insurance and costs associated with Medicare. Medicare is again lowering its payment amounts by 20%. That's a big hit for a practice that handles a lot of Medicare. Don't even ask about Medicare audits.
Testing - I went to my GP with stomach pains - his answer? a 5 minute consult and a $4,500 MRI. So total cost of visit around $4,700 Then got a card in the mail saying there was nothing wrong. I know him pretty well so I asked him what the hell - $4,700 for a stomach ache? His answer - less of his time, answers multiple questions, and minimizes his chances of being sued!
Blue Cross didn't build that castle on the hill because its premiums are low.
Good thing it's a non-profit!
Those ads you mention are over the top for sure but not entirely wrong. I have good friends in Canada, the UK, and Australia. Some family stories they can tell would make you sick.
The most costly "service" that hospitals MUST perform by federal fiat is ER treatment for all, including those with no ability to pay and no insurance. The cost of that "service" is passed on to me and thee...people who can pay. It is no wonder doctor visits are going through the roof.
One answer is to end all mandatory treatment for illegal aliens or anyone else injured while committing an illegal act. [Including criminals shot by police; no insurance, no treatment here.] That eliminates the uncollectable hospital overhead costs of 20-40 million people right there, including the costs of delivery rooms.
The indigent, the poverty-stricken and the uninsured can do as they always did...use free clinics; they abound or they did until mandatory treatment came into being and costs skyrocketed.
But that won't happen, of course. There is too much "other people's money" floating around.
Another answer is tort reform...another answer we will never see.
STOP awards for "damages" aka punishment for alleged "misconduct" or malpractice; allow juries to award ONLY actual costs to plaintiffs with only 15-20% going to attorneys -- plus actual receipted expenses. If a jury finds AGAINST the plaintiff, he/she/they AND THEIR ATTORNEYS pay all fees, costs, and expenses of the prevailing side including their attorneys.
When the cost of malpractice insurance goes through the floor, doctors fees will follow.
Hit two nails right on the head rolando. But ohhhh the inhumanity - have you no compassion? (joke)
If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California