This may sound like the legislation had broad support; it did not. It passed by the slimmest margin and without any Republican support. It required some parliamentary chicanery to get the bill past the narrow majority. By all accounts it required some severe "arm-twisting," back room deals and sleazy promises. Nebraska and other states got Federal dollars, California got water; Colorado and Kansas had some of their money shut off. Democrats were promised by a majority of voters that they will be voted out of office in November if they supported the bill. Despite this, 219 Democrats did vote for the plan. Given the certainty of their political "suicide" and the already fallen election losers piling up, why would anyone vote for this? The C.B.O. estimates already have it as a trillion dollar looser. Moody's threatened to downgrade the US Treasury's bond rating if it passed. China dumped $38 Billion in US T-bills in advance of the vote. So, then, what is the political and social capital that is so valued that so many would risk everything for this vote?
Clearly, the motives of the supporters are many, Obama and Pelosi may have entirely different underlying goals in their respective quests for universal healthcare. President Obama has very clearly stated what he wants for the nation's healthcare system. He insists on the government as a single payer as in the Canadian and Massachusetts systems. He also says he knows it will not happen overnight, that the process will take at least four years to fundamentally transform the system. So, then, what is this system going to look like when our promised transformation is done. This is what we will explore in the next post.
The CBO gives three ways to look at the cost of this bill and they range from saving 38 billion to saving 132 billion.
ReplyDeletehttp://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508
The scale of this legislation is on a par with Clinton's effort to reform health care (he failed) and Bush's effort to reform Social Security (he failed). This kind of monumental change makes sausage. The problem isn't Obama, it is Congress.
ReplyDeleteThe motives of the supporters are many and so are the motives of the objectors. But when did Obama speak in favor of single payer? I'm for single payer (as are over 40% of the Senators) and I haven't felt any support from him. Canada, yes, but you call Massachusetts single payer?
ReplyDeleteThe CBO cost studies cover Federal money only. The bill expands the coverage of Medicaid which is mandated by Congress but partially funded by the states.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama has been a long-time supporter of single-payer funding for health care both in Illinois and in the Senate. Only recently has he been quiet about his earlier stand.
The growth in the Massachusetts health care system has been by expanding Medicaid to cover those well above the poverty line. The State Treasurer testified this week that the only thing which kept the system above bankruptcy is the increase in Federal dollars supporting Medicaid in the state.
I actually just read some portions of the CBO blog about the health care reform bill signed today. It does not say what you have been told it says. To paraphrase, they acknowledge that Congress will pass additional legislation to "fix" (my words) the reductions in Medicare reimbursements. They go on to say that this additional spending is not calculated into the CBO estimates even though the CBO is certain this legislation and spending will be forthcoming.
ReplyDelete