How Ted Kennedy’s Replacement Is Impacting Healthcare Reform
Several months ago, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (often referred to as Ted) passed away. Oft-referred to as a “liberal lion”, he was one of the Senate’s major supporters of healthcare reform and express vociferous support for the public option. His temporary replacement, Paul G. Kirk Jr. has taken up the mantle of his former mentor. Kennedy’s death was considered a blow to the prospects of a public option, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have recently renewed them. With a decades-long tenure, he had connections with politicians on both sides of the aisle. It’s doubtful that a relative newcomer will be able to achieve the bipartisan cooperation he asked for in his recent floor speech. Healthcare reform, especially the public option, are very politically divisive issues. Rhetoric has become even more partisan over the past several months.
What exactly does Kirk want in a healthcare reform bill? During his speech, he assailed the health insurance lobby, which he referred to as a collection of “special interests” who profit off of the status quo. While many politicians in both parties have pointed to a recession as a reason for delaying reform (or scuttling it altogether), Kirk also stated his view that there is an even greater need for reform now, with so many families in need. Like his predecessor, he supports the public option, telling the Boston Globe that he believes it is the most effective way to increase competition in the insurance market and lower your health insurance quote. While not completely discounting the debt resulting from such an action, he seems to think that a New Deal-esque public program for insurance will assist in jump-starting the economy and eventually pay back in spades.
When it comes to driving the direction of the health care debate, Kirk is in a surprisingly good position–despite being a new senator with little clout in a chamber ruled by seniority. He also doesn’t have to worry about re-election, since he will leave office after Massachusetts’ special election in late January. As a result, unlike most other legislators, he doesn’t need to pander as much to either side. Above all, he wants both parties to cooperate the way they did in his home state. People across the political spectrum have pointed out flaws in that state’s healthcare reform program, but the combined efforts of Republicans (such as Mitt Romney) and Democrats on Massachusetts health care reform resulted in nearly all of its population (97%) becoming insured. Similar to the late Ted Kennedy, Kirk thinks that providing basic healthcare through a public option is a moral imperative for the American government. His ideal of compromise is a lofty goal. Kirk may not be able to overcome this philosophical difference with Republicans, who think private industry is more efficient and that it isn’t the government’s job to get so involved (although some are more open than others to stricter regulation of the health insurance industry). However, the underlying concept of a health care system that benefits all Americans is one that applies to both parties.
(Image: Official U.S. Senate Portrait)
Watch the video related to health care reform bill
March 18, 2009 3:24 am 
By Tracy Turnblad, March 18, 2009 @ 4:42 am
First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it is cheaper. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance.
Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.
Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this.
FACT – the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover.
FACT – the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.
Last of all if you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012.
By TomStar81, March 18, 2009 @ 4:49 am
Yes you are talking about TORT reform. the Democrats do not want to touch the Lawyers. it seems the Lawyers are in the democrats pocket.*
By URL Shortener, March 18, 2009 @ 4:06 am
dude, you own! this looks identical to a photograph
By Youtube Downloader, March 18, 2009 @ 4:18 am
véiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, que difuu
By skinnyblink7, March 19, 2009 @ 4:52 am
the new york times has an interactive feature which is actually very clear to understand. check it out.
By Anonymous, March 19, 2009 @ 3:12 am
HOLY CRAP! Comparing this to the original picture, they’re identical!
By The Conservative Resistance, March 19, 2009 @ 8:32 am
Under any Democrat President in history, the same M.O. emerges.
The Democrats "identify" a "crisis" and whip the people up into a frenzy about it. They proclaim themselves the carriers of the elixir that will heroically save all mankind from this "crisis.'' When Republicans seek to oppose the spending it will take for this elixir, they are automatically called hate mongers and obstructionists.
Clinton tried it with school lunch menus. He whipped that whole thing into some kind of "crisis." The Democrats wanted to raise the program by 10% and the Republicans wanted to raise it by 7%. That got reported in the media as a 3% CUT by Republicans. Only when a Democrat is President could an INCREASE be reported as a CUT. Just to make Republicans look bad, but too many people buy into the bullshit.
Al Gore, who wasn't even President, tried it with global warming and it didn't work. Today, it's health care. What'll it be tomorrow? The whole "world is ending in 2012" thing, or what?
By Short, Fast, and Loud, March 19, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Obama does not have a bill. He has only given guidelines to what he wants. His last address made it more specific.
The bills in congress are not healthcare bills. They are health coverage bills. The government is trying to take control of a large portion of our economy. They are trying to make it so the government is a single payer source (I know i will get thumbs down for this, but follow hr3200 to its logical conclusion).
The current bills want to cover everybody in the US (Illegals too, there is nothing in these bills to prevent illegals from being covered. Amendments to ensure citizenship were tabled)
The federal government wants to punish you for not having insurance (they will get your money one way or another)
The government wants to regulate what care you will get. (When the system becomes overblaoted as any government system does, they will have 2 options increase taxes or ration care)
I know that there are a lot of people that will disagree with this. If they actually read the bills, and follow to there logical conclusions, in 10 years we will be a whole lot worse of than we are now. So doing nothing would actually be cheaper.
Reform must actually deal with the underlaying problems. HR 320o does not. Obama gave lip service to 1 of them.
By Youtube Downloader, March 21, 2009 @ 8:20 am
awesome stuff man,….ama practice hard to get to yo level!