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.”
