Seems I may have been a bit premature in being optimistic about Obama’s health care “summit” with Republicans. He may not be looking to have an open discussion with both sides putting their views forward on how to proceed with health care reform, but instead in using this as a back door to pick up some Republican support for his massive health care overhaul.
He has, as law professor William A. Jacobson observes, “imposed the precondition that the negotiations start with the Democratic versions of health care legislation:”
White House aides quickly rejected the idea that Obama wants to start over after nearly a year of contentious legislative haggling among members of his party.
Officials said the president will come to the health-care summit armed with a merged version of the two bills that Democrats strong-armed through the two chambers with almost no GOP backing.
“This is not starting over,” one White House official said, who requested anonymity in order to discuss administration strategy. “Don’t make any mistake about that. We are coming with our plan. They can bring their plan.”
The problem is that right now, while there are a number of Republican ideas are on the table, there is no one Republican plan. And unless Republican settle on a single plan, the White House will try to use these negotiations to try to cast aspersions on the GOP for not having such a plan. If the White House comes with their plan (which is something it should have done last summer), they’re all be certain to make it the focus of negotiations.
Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. And indeed, if Republicans come well-prepared, it may be a good thing. They can press on removing certain provisions particularly unpalatable to them (and the American people) that Democrats would be loath to remove. And on inserting such things as tort reform that remain popular with the American people, but are anathema to Democrats.
They must not acquiesce to a radical overhaul of our health care system. It’s not good for the country and it’s not what the people want. So, rather than try to work within Obama’s framework, Republicans, Tom Maguire believes “should stick to [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s message – rather than try to reform one-sixth of the US economy in three hours, Republicans should offer some simple first steps.”
That may make them appear to be the “Party of No” to the Democrats, but to the American people, it will make them look like the party of reasonable reform.
UPDATE: Matthew Continetti offers an interesting suggestion: GOP should show Obama the one-page health reform bill
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/one-page-health-bill-83814567.html#ixzz0ezIiUlZp
I have a problem with this. Why should politicians negotiate anything? That’s not their job to negotiate healthcare because the American public doesn’t want it!! This is total BS. These bastards will exempt themselves from this quasi socialist/fascist healthcare. While we will have to deal with crap care. Or in reality, NO CARE!!
Amen Scherie. They are statists and they don’t care what the people think or say.
I think this summit is an opportunity for Obama to put down the Republicans and their ideas yet again. No matter what they come up with, Obama will say they don’t have a plan.
Didn’t I hear Obama say he wasn’t opposed to tort reform, but that the proposal would only save a few percent on total healthcare costs? In fact, looking at this, it’s not just Obama. Business Week says, and I quote:
So torm reform itself wouldn’t do a whole lot it seems. “1% to 2%” is unlikely to help anyone struggling right now. Of course this isn’t the only proposal the Republicans could bring to the table, but the other parts of the overall vision will have to have a much greater impact to actually bring that $2.5 trillion total down by a significant amount.
I talked about preconditions this AM in the other thread. Obama is totally insincere, totally trying to involve the Republicans so he can blame them later, and the Republicans are idiots (or deserve what’s coming) IF they do not impose their own preconditions. Such as, free-market reforms only… ObamaCare must be scrapped completely.
I’m sure lawyers were the source ultimately for the number you quoted. I have family members who are surgeons. They have been saying for years – no, decades – how crushing and discouraging are the malpractice lawsuits and ever-increasing insurance costs, and how many colleagues of their have quit the profession because of it. And politically, they’re liberals!
(to be clear: the ever-increasing malpractice insurance costs, that they are faced with)
@ILoveCapitalism: If you read the article, the numbers are far from just being made up by some lawyers. They’re based on tort reform measures already enacted in 30 states, and calculating what impact similar reforms would have on a nationwide level.
I get the impression you never took the time to read the actual article though (seriously, it’s not long, it took me less than two minutes) because there’s actually a paragraph on how doctors see things differently. One comments that the figure would not be 1% or 2% but more like 5%, which I would still consider small potatoes personally.
There’s an additional note that tort reform reduced lawsuits by half and malpractice insurance rates by 30%, but health insurance costs there are still among the highest in the country, and are growing at an above average rate. If that’s what tort reform is going to bring to the nation, don’t the Democrats have a responsibility to oppose it?
I know the posters at this blog really like the idea of tort reform, but the evidence is pretty strong that it’s not a silver bullet.
Correction to above, tort reform reduced lawsuits by half and malpractice insurance rates by 30% in Texas. Must’ve got cut off while I was editing the post.
well, if the republicans demand, as a precondition to their participation, that obama and the dems scrap their plan entirely, after it’s been approved by both chambers of congress, it’s hard for me to believe that the gop is willing to negotiate in good faith.
One comments that the figure would not be 1% or 2% but more like 5%, which I would still consider small potatoes personally.
If one estimates that the total cost of health care in this country is 3 trillion dollars annually, 5% of that is 150 billion dollars annually.
Or, put differently, by putting these changes in place, health care costs could be reduced by 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years.
To put that in perspective, leftists like Serenity were shrieking that the cost of the Iraq war, approximately $4.4 billion per month or roughly $53 billion per year, was “bankrupting the country” and something we “couldn’t afford”.
But when it comes to cutting three times that amount in annual health care costs for Americans? “Small potatoes”.
Again, you see the complete lack of intelligence and curiosity on the part of talking-points repeaters like Serenity. If they actually were looking at the numbers, they would realize that total health care costs are so large in the aggregate that ANY percentage reduction is going to save billions of dollars.
But again, this is not Serenity’s money that is being spent. Serenity and others like them are merely moochers and welfare cases who are trying to vote themselves higher benefits without ever having to pay for them. Therefore, Serenity can afford to throw away $150 billion a year for ideological purposes and to protect the profits of trial lawyers because it does not and will not ever have to pay for it.
well, if the republicans demand, as a precondition to their participation, that obama and the dems scrap their plan entirely, after it’s been approved by both chambers of congress, it’s hard for me to believe that the gop is willing to negotiate in good faith.
If the bill’s already been passed and no changes can be made to it, then this whole thing is a farce.
That is really what the Republicans need to point out — that they can’t make any changes to the bill and that the Obama Party has already rammed it through with a host of giveaways and backroom deals. Make the Obama Party own up to what it has created.
So what is it? 1%? or 30%? Or 50% (half)? Or potentially still more?
Let me bottom-line it for you Serenity: You tried to “spin” that tort reform wouldn’t accomplish much of note. Now that I’ve pressed you, you’re backtracking big-time. But still trying to spin it as if your point was somehow right. Great pretense.
And now, the straw man tactics come out. Good job Serenity, straw man tactics are sure to make me stop and think.
(I mean: Who has ever claimed tort reform is a silver bullet? Hint: Nobody.)
NDT, exactly.
The price of Republican support should be: Start over. No public option. No mandates. No net tax increases, spending increases, or regulation increases. Free-market reforms only. If the Democrats can’t handle that, then let the Democrats finish passage of ObamaCare – if the Democrats can keep their party together, which is doubtful – and, let the Democrats pay the full price for their wicked deeds in November.
@Serenity: I see no reason to doubt the figures outlined, but – so what?
Our President has a simple way to lower costs and it’s not in the legislation. Think about it: pushing spending to 2014, the Cornhusker Kickback, dropping the Mandate, the Louisiana Purchase – all these tortured maneuvers to make the bill seem palatable and cost effective and tort reform doesn’t get a mention!
No, it’s back to first principals if they want the situation to improve: do we want healthcare to be cheaper? To be universal? To be more efficient? These are goals can be mutually exclusive, so we need to decide what our goals even are.
Especially since this bloated, proto-NHS monstrosity does none of those things and costs a trillion dollars to do it.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Any percent reduction would be good, and I would endorse tort reform to that end. But figures I saw back in 2009 suggested that a public healthcare insurer negotiating drug costs down could result in a 40% saving. That’s what I’d call substantial, and would go a long way towards bringing costs in line with other developed nations.
Actually, you’re right. I live in Britain, I already have what I want from healthcare. If you feel like spending more to get less, you’re free to do do. I just don’t like falsehoods being spread.
What kind of idiot are you? You’re trying to quote mine me with the original on the same fucking page?
50% reduction on lawsuits, 30% reduction on malpractice insurance, 1-5% (depending on who you ask) on the final healthcare insurance that you would be buying. In fact, I immediately followed the “half” and “30%” figures with “health insurance costs there are still among the highest in the country, and are growing at an above average rate”, which you know because it’s in the message you just quoted!
The original figure stands, in large bolded text in the original article.
2.3%
Estimated reduction in overall health-care costs if significant medical malpractice reform is enacted. There’s your bottom line.
Also, the article steals an important base here:
This isn’t the mystery the authors make it out to be and nationalizing health services will make it even worse.
Best wishes,
-MFS
NDT, another true point… but I was actually thinking of broader effects. Doctors are crushed, spiritually as well as financially, by the costs of malpractice lawsuits and malpractice insurance. And insurance companies are crushed by the cost of “defensive medicine”, a state of over-expenditure that is one factor in driving up all medical costs. If we had meaningful tort reform, the eventual benefits would be far larger than the immediate cost benefits.
Disclaimer: I have not just said that tort reform is a silver bullet. People of common sense and goodwill understand that of course, but I had better spell it out just for Serenity’s benefit.
Maybe I’m missing something, but why does President Obama require pre-conditions to meet with Republicans, but he didn’t require any to meet with Iran?
If he’s allowed to set pre-conditions, so are the Republicans.
Maybe because the Iranians aren’t the ones attacking him right now. I can imagine Khamenei and Ahmadinejad having a good laugh at how viciously the duly-elected President of the United States gets attacked while Iran’s phony president and the unelected Supreme Leader faces no serious threats to their plans.
And, now the name-calling comes out.
Another day, another pompous, pretentious leftist who can’t control themselves… reduced to foaming at the mouth.
P.S. As for the empirical question here, as to whether I am in fact an idiot: Well Serenity, I may be 🙂 …but one thing is for sure, we have previously proven that I at least understand what the concept of “censorship” means… while you do not.
@Serenity#20:
Are you holding up Iran’s totalitarian government as some kind of model?
This is shades of Tom Friedman on the Red Chinese and it’s morally reprehensible nonsense.
Best wishes,
-MFS
It seems that Cantor and company have called shenanigans on Obama’s overture and good for them!
They ask some great questions:
"Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? "
"Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills?"
"If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?"
Great stuff, actually.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Preconditions. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
And thank you MFS.
Right back atcha, ILC. 😉
Best wishes,
-MFS
“If they actually were looking at the numbers, they would realize that total health care costs are so large in the aggregate that ANY percentage reduction is going to save billions of dollars.”
Exactly.
No, it’s NOT a silver bullet, but I look at it this way: My van is a POS. It nickel-and-dimes me to death. Malpractice and defensive medicine are some of those nickels and dimes in the costs of healthcare. They don’t seem like jack shit until they start adding up.
It seems that nothing else can be done again in terms of the health care of the people. The Dems will still pursue with what they want even if it will hurt the people they are supposed to care for. What can’t the Dems and the Pubs work together to make this health care bill become focused on the welfare of the people and not just on a few?