Will Democrats Pass Affordable Health Insurance Reform?

Will Democrats Pass Affordable Health Insurance Reform?

The fight over healthcare reform has reached the Senate, and may take longer than previously expected. Reform intended to promote the wider availability of affordable health insurance seems to have lost the momentum recently gained via its nail-biting passage in the House of Representatives. Republican senators have expressed unanimous disapproval of the bill and vow to filibuster in order to block it. Healthcare reform will require 60 votes to pass, which means that the entire Democratic caucus–the party’s entire Senate delagation with a handful of independents–needs to support it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is attempting to hold together two divergent wings of the Democratic caucus, with several factors coming into play.

  As it currently stands, the health care reform bill isn’t ideal for either liberal or conservative Democrats. While Democratic leaders have encouraged passage under the logic of imperfect reform being preferable to leaving the current system as it stands with soaring health insurance rates, many senators are understandably leery of voting for legislation that will take a monumental effort to amend later. Reid is doing his best to convince Democrats, as well as Democratic sympathizers, that this is a rare opportunity that shouldn’t be passed up. Whether he will manage to bring them around to his viewpoint remains to be seen. President Obama has also pushed for a completed bill on his desk before January, although that possibility is becoming more and more remote. Obama has several major priorities on his plate (both domestic and foreign) besides healthcare reform, and is currently suffering from lower popularity ratings. Therefore, his influence is probably more decreased than many once thought.   One of the most controversial aspects of healthcare reform is the public option, which would create a federal government-run alternative to private health insurance plans. Proponents claim that it would drive down the cost of health care through using its buying power and regulatory muscle to buy health care services at lower rates, while at the same time forcing for-profit health insurers to lower their health insurance premiums to stay competitive. They predict more affordable health insurance as the result. On the other hand, opponents decry the increased level of governmental involvement and potentially deficit-busting cost of a public option. The former group consists of liberal progressives, such as independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean. Sanders, in particular, is threatening to vote against a bill that lacks a public option. Those in the latter group, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Connecticut’s independent Joe Lieberman, have expressed their willingness to jump ship and vote against a healthcare reform bill that includes a public option.   The Democratic caucus appears to have reached an impasse in some respects. A compromise currently proposed in the Senate allows individual states to opt out of the public option. Liberals seem to begrudgingly accept the clause, but it isn’t good enough for staunch fiscal conservatives like Lieberman and Nelson. Due to the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate, Reid can’t afford to lose a single vote. The chances of garnering Republican support for this healthcare reform bill are slim to none. The only hope of doing so is through writing a trigger function into the bill. Such a measure would only enact a public option if certain goals of expanding affordable health insurance to more Americans are not met. There may be a handful of Republican moderates like Maine Senator Olympia Snowe willing to vote for such a measure, allowing for a cushion in the event that Lieberman bolts; but that gamble has the possibility of angering progressives.   In the recent past, liberal Democrats tended to hold their nose and vote for legislation they had serious issues with because it was preferable to the alternative of getting even less of what they wanted; now, they are becoming more outspoken, threatening to withhold their votes if provisions regarding the public option or abortion are unacceptable to them–using the same tactics conservatives on both sides of the aisle have used to pressure party leaders in the past. It will be a significant struggle to keep all of the Senators in line. The bill is still being written, but Reid appears to be supporting a moderate approach that, by its definition as a comprehensive healthcare reform bill, leans more towards centrist and liberal Democrats but still has too many flaws for them to endorse wholeheartedly.   The chances of healthcare reform soon passing the Senate are mixed. Michigan Senator Carl Levin believes that the bill stands a “decent chance” of gaining the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Indiana’s Evan Bayh seems to be similarly ambivialent, though he admits that a solution that satisfies everyone is virtually impossible. Meanwhile, Republicans are calling the bill fatally flawed and recommending that it be scrapped and healthcare reform put on the back burner. That idea is unacceptable to Democrats, who believe that increasing access to affordable health insurance is essential to their larger economic recovery effort. Moreover, they probably want to have some legislation to show their constituents before the 2010 midterm elections. If the Senate manages to pass the bill, its version will need to be combined with the House’s version. In the event that the combined bill is approved by both chambers of Congress, it then goes to President Obama’s desk. While it is doubtful that he would veto a bill regarding one of his highest domestic priorities, one that strays too far from its indended purpose has the small chance of not receiving a signature.

Watch the video related to health care reform bill





9 Comments

  • By TomStar81, November 17, 2009 @ 4:22 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 Tracy Turnblad, November 17, 2009 @ 4:37 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 URL Shortener, November 17, 2009 @ 3:16 am

    dude, you own! this looks identical to a photograph

  • By Youtube Downloader, November 17, 2009 @ 3:35 am

    véiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, que difuu

  • By skinnyblink7, November 17, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

    the new york times has an interactive feature which is actually very clear to understand. check it out.

  • By Youtube Downloader, November 18, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

    awesome stuff man,….ama practice hard to get to yo level!

  • By The Conservative Resistance, November 19, 2009 @ 8:15 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 Anonymous, November 19, 2009 @ 6:51 am

    HOLY CRAP! Comparing this to the original picture, they’re identical!

  • By Short, Fast, and Loud, November 19, 2009 @ 5:13 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.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPresss