Harry’s High Stakes GambleBack to the Blog »
October 27th, 2009
Email This Page Print This Post
We are getting down to some serious business now, and the stakes continue to get higher…
For many reasons, the momentum behind the health reform initiative is more powerful than it has ever been. The President and Democratic leaders have invested unprecedented political capital in the issue and are exerting intense pressure on the rank and file to support far-reaching, system-wide legislation that will remake the $2.5 trillion healthcare economy. But even as the momentum for reform continues to build, the twists and turns continue…
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threw a major curveball yesterday when he announced that the Senate bill he sends to the floor will include a governement run public option that States will have the opportunity to “opt-out” of if they desire. This is a huge gamble and left many wondering what he is up to.
Ben Pershing writing in the Washington Post Voices has a number of theories as to Reid’s motives. But regardless of his true intentions, a couple of things are certain:
1. He will have no problem getting 51 votes to pass whatever he wants once the vote is called.
2. The problem is he needs 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster and force a floor vote.
3. Moderate’s like Lieberman (I-CT), Nelson (D-CO), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AK), Bayh (D-IN) and Conrad (D-MT) hold the keys to power and will ultimately determine where we end up.
4. With Lieberman’s strong reaction against the public plan, Reid needs Republican Olympia Snowe’s to support cloture and force the floor vote. But she has been burned by Reid in this process as he turned from her public option ”trigger” to the opt-out plan, and is on record against the public option. Look for the pressure on Snowe to really heat up.
Here’s a collection of the most immediate reaction from Lieberman, Snowe, and Lincoln , all of which seems to suggest an intense battle ahead…
One thing is for sure: at the end of the day, politics will trump policy…as in the past, at moments like this (and this) I have found it really helpful to revisit the key objectives of reform to see how we’re progressing toword the stated goals of:
- Access to affordable health insurance for all
- Improved quality and medical outcomes
- Lower costs
So how are we doing? At this stage, this is all about increase access and government subsidies for the poor. Nothing for cost control. Nothing specific for quality improvements. This is not good.
On top of it all, the legislative process is watering down all of the major elements needed for reform and is giving us…sausage…In my opinion, that’s the most significant obstacle to passing comprehensive reform–the sheer scope and breadth of the issue, and the immensity of the details involved in legislation of this magnitude. The complexity of the negotiations and the various factions that need to be appeased creates an almost unwinnable legislative balance that, in the end, may well cause health reform to “collapse under it’s own weight”.
Said another way, the extended negotiations and “horse-trading” it takes to produce agreement on the major issues is producing a bill that is too complicated, fragmented, burdensome and costly to achieve the major objectives around access, quality or cost control. In the end, the process produces legislation that really won’t work and is unsellable to the masses.
But that’s only if the masses are paying attention and understand the details. Are they just interested in “reform for reforms sake”, or do they believe that the bills being debated can actually improve their life? And what about the economy– the pace at which the economy recovers jobs will also play a huge factor in the political game. Will the public see health reform as a way to speed the recovery, or is it really just a secondary issue that is drawing resources away from what people care the most about—jobs?
We’ll soon find out.
Posted by Bill in Healthcare Reform
With the exception of the recent success of “Cash for Clunkers”, does anyone think the government runs much of anything with efficiency, cost savings, and satisfied consumers? Honestly, I think even a 5th Grader could have been in charge of that goverment program and achieved the same stellar results!
However, what we are all talking about is much more expensive and infinitely more important to our nation’s future. The amount of money it’s going to ultimately cost each and every one of us to fund this so-called “reform” is beyond staggering. And if their “cost savings” don’t materialize they have two options: raise our taxes or print more money (they usually choose the former).
You’ll notice that the price tag discussed is always in the neighborhood of $950 Billion dollars, but that’s really the bare minimum AND only if their plan goes exactly as outlined. Let’s just be honest and call it what it really is, $1,000,000,000,000, a Trillion dollars. And the final price tag, when all is said and done? Beats me, but you can be certain that it’s going to be a number with way too many zeros at the end.
One more question even a 5th Grader could answer……Do you really think they are going to come in under budget? The Federal Government is certainly not Acmat, a local New Britain, CT company, whose proud corporate slogan is “More….for less…and on time”! More often than not the Feds can be counted on for delivering “Less…for more….and not on time”.
In response to the success of “Cash for Clunkers” in the previous comment and the thought that it actually was run efficiently…the program ran out of money far earlier than expected and had to be cut short. If that is any indication of how a government run health care option will operate than it is a very scary thought.
As a consumer who would love to see reform across the country for people who need health care, I selfishly admit that my own interests come into play as I do not want the extra tax burden to pay for such a system. Some of the cost will supposedly come from Medicare/Medicaid reform which has been running ‘inefficient’ for several years. What makes anyone think that a bill like this slapped together in just a few months can run any better that those systems did?
FYI–As reported in today’s Wall Street Journal the total cost for reform, after adding in a change to protect seniors from a gap in coverage for prescription drugs, is now expected to be more than $1 trillion.