Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > September > 13 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Divide on health care comes down to dreams
One point about the health care issue has come in for way too little attention: President Barack Obama’s promise to pay for his plan — as opposed to borrowing the money — is a radical departure.
Presidents don’t do this. George W. Bush wouldn’t have dreamed of paying — in this sense — for his prescription drug addition to Medicare; that initiative was about two-thirds as expensive as the Obama plan that opponents are calling a government takeover.
Bush also wouldn’t have dreamed of paying for any wars, which are more expensive. On the contrary, he was busily cutting taxes.
Of course, many people don’t believe Obama
when he says he will pay for his plan, not let it add to the deficit. They note that nonpartisan analysis shows that pending health care bills in Congress would add to it. But he keeps repeating his pledge as publicly as possible.
The fact needs to be understood when discussion turns to whether he can get Republicans on board.
Tough job. After all, some sort of tax increase would be necessary.
Opposition to tax hikes has been the single best unifier of the Republicans. Some Republicans in Congress have said publicly that the tax issue alone will cause nearly solid Republican opposition.
So a lot of what was said and implied over the last few days is `not to be taken too seriously.
To the naked ear, Obama sounded Wednesday as if he’s trying to get Republican support. He embraced a John McCain proposal and mentioned other Republicans favorably. He bowed in the direction of Republican efforts to reduce the exposure of doctors to lawsuits. He repeatedly tried to place himself between the extremes of left and right.
But, in truth, he was mainly trying to unite Democrats by allowing those from relatively conservative districts to point to his accommodating attitude when they confront their own constituents.
Meanwhile, the Republicans, too, were trying to give the impression that they are open to negotiation. Their House leader, John Boehner, representing rural and suburban areas around Dayton, as well as part of the city, wrote of “our offer to work together on common-sense reforms we can all agree on.”
Rep. Mike Turner, a Republican representing the bulk of Montgomery County and northern Warren County, said he supports Obama’s plan to prevent insurance companies from excluding people because of pre-existing conditions. But he worries about other elements of the plan.
Fellow Republican Steve Austria, representing Greene County and Springfield, spoke specifically of a disposable part of the president’s plan, the “public option,” under which some people could buy insurance from the government.
“I think that anyone who followed the federal government’s bungling of the Cash for Clunkers programs would have serious concerns with how bureaucrats in Washington would mange their health care.”
(Of course, anybody with those concerns wouldn’t have to buy into the plan. (Anyway, doesn’t dealing in the vapid old cliches about governmental incompetence seem kind of odd for a representative of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base? So far, the Air Force hasn’t been privatized.)
Sen. George Voinovich was himself, focusing on the details in a statement before the speech.
“To date, many of his (Obama’s) ideas have lacked vital details and have left me with more questions than answers.”
He’s one guy who has to be taken relatively seriously when he suggests his mind is open. And he’s never been a purist about taxes. But, still, he’s not being watched in Washington as somebody likely to cross over.
Apparently sensitive to the charge of being the party of “No,” in the grip of their extremists, the Republicans are taking pains lately to point out what they’re for: insurance for people with pre-existing conditions; some protection for people who lose their jobs, and more.
But they’re not talking about aggressive efforts to achieve universal coverage. That’s the Ted Kennedy dream, not the Republican dream.
After it’s enacted, whenever that may be, its existence will be no more controversial than Social Security or Medicare. The rest of the affluent world already takes it for granted.
But for now that’s pretty much what the fight is about. Either you’ve got your heart set on the goal of all American having decent health coverage — complete with the costs of that effort — or not.
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Health Care, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, National Politics, Ohio politics
Comments
By Bill from Brookville
September 13, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this
Having received over $3.7 Million from the Insurance Industry Boehner is for what ever the Insurance Industry wantsBy Gregg Nicholl
September 13, 2009 9:21 AM | Link to this
There is a more foundational principle at work in this so-called healthcare bill- that of our existence as a free people. When we continue to put more and more of our lives in the hands of government bureaucrats we give up something. The current bill of focus, HR 3200, has incredible encroachments on the privacy of Americans: from direct access to bank accounts and all personal and financial information to an expanded role of the IRS for enforcement and data management purposes. Do we want to sacrifice our freedom or work for REAL solutions to the healthcare situation?By mwm
September 13, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this
So very true, Bill. Every day, I talk to people who have issues with health insurance companies. In one case, a conservative who is against any govt. run program, tried to get surgery through the VA. I guess “socialized medicine” is even ok for conservatives, if it helps with their bills. I talked to a young man yesterday, his wife has cancer. Yes, they have insurance but, are being put in the poor house by the copays. This is quite common and the cause of most personal bankruptcies. I hear stories every day! People whose medical decisions are being made by some clerk in an office. Usually related to “in or out of network”, “medical necessity” and the like. Doctors can’t make decisions anymore. It takes a data entry person. I also get “denial of claims notices from my health insurance provider. This is standard business practice for the insurance companies - deny claims on the first round and expect their customers to fight with them, which I always do. In most cases, they pay. After much time on the phone arguing with them. The health insurance industry preys on the sick, takes advantage of the sick and, keeps people sick… It keeps the profits flowing. I write members of congress all the time and Boehner is more concerned with the future of the GOP and his career goals. He could care less about his constituents. The GOP has no real plan, except to support their lobbyists in the health care industry.By Michael
September 13, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this
Wow. Obama must have made a whole lot of money off of those books for him to pay for it himself! Wait…he’s not using his own money? I didn’t realize you could be charitable with other people’s money, but that seems to be the case here.By davidss2
September 13, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this
If anyone believes Barry’s statement that the cost of the takeover will only be 900 billion $$ or so is smoking something wrong. If there were savings in Medicare to be saved, Bush would have cut there (oh, he did try to do so). Why hasn’t Barry just issued a presidential edict to correct those overspendigns in Medicare. How about the fraud pointed out in Medicade that is rampant. Oh, can’t touch that; that’s political payback. If anyone thinks this isn’t going to cost a couple trillion more… Oh wait. We’ve already thrown out a few trillion in pork to the Dem’s districts. What another couple trillion along with all the people’s rights? Achtung. Heil.By Ice Bandit
September 13, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this
Hey Marty, let me see if I got this right. The party you and the DDN have become a propaganda arm for advocates bolshevising 20 percent of our economy, sending insurance companies to economic gulags, expanding already and soon to be bankrupt government health programs; and the bunch that opposes these measures are the extremists. No intellectual gymnastics there…..By Rob
September 13, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this
Right Orangetree. So instead of nobody being driven in to bankruptcy by illness those who have money will be driven in to bankruptcy by taxes. Those who think government health care is the answer should go to Wright-Patt to what they’re in for.By mwm
September 13, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this
Currently, In most cases, when a person has a major medical problem, if they have insurance, the insurance will cover about 80% with about $3000 to $6000 max out of pocket per year. Some insurances offer less some, more. Average cost per month for an employee on employer based health insurance ranges from $300 to $600 per month for a family. In some cases, copays can cripple a family budget; especially if the insurance only covers 80% with no out of pocket max. So, if a person has a very serious medical condition, expenses could be as high as $1,000,000 or more. So, 80% paid and the patient may end up with $200,000 in medical bills. Obviously, next step is bankruptcy. And, the creditors and govt eat it anyway. If a person has a serious medical condition and can’t work for an extended period of time, they may lose health care coverage. Mainly because it is difficult to afford $300 or $600 per month when one can’t work. And, bankruptcy may also occur. Result is, the creditors and govt. eat it. Going without health insurance causes a fast track to bankruptcy. We need health care reform.By Davidss2
September 13, 2009 8:20 PM | Link to this
MWM has it wrong. If the problem is high bills for ill people and those who can’t work, we need to reduce the bills by lowering medical costs by limiting malpractice insurance costs. We also need to provide a safety net for those in dire need. We don’t need to provide a cushy alternate for people who don’t want to work for a living like the rest of us, but we already provide a fraud-filled medicaide for them. We need to provide a control on the hospital and doctor’s costs. We need to take the savings out of medicare if there are any really there like Barry boasts. But that sure won’t pay for a cushy government plan he has in mind for all of us eventually.—————-Barry has to create a crisis mentality to get people to buy into spending, spending, spending. Of course it worked for the pork bill. How’s the unemployment going? He promised that passing that little stimulus/lotta pork would keep unemployment under 8% or so. It’s 10% and actually 15 and 16% when all unemployed are counted in Ohio and Michigan. He lied. Were the stimulus and cap and tax bills on the internet for 48 hours before the vote (no changes) like he promised? He lied. Are we getting the picture?By Bill in Brookville
September 14, 2009 8:12 AM | Link to this
Davidss2, we get a picture you are wrong. your buddies cheny/bush allowed ins.companies control of medicare through supplemental insurance raising the costs to medicare 14%. retail purchases of drugs with no price adjustments also hurts it. tax paid research develops most drugs through universities yet drug co. get the profits. like energy, banking etc.health care is greed driven with cheny/bush help.By joe_mamma
September 14, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this
Bill is misinformed. Government funds less than 40% of medical research. Nice try to there Socialist Bill.By Bill in Brookville
September 15, 2009 8:17 AM | Link to this
A U.S.Senate report in 2000 stated “15 of 21 drug with the greatest therapeutic impact on the public were developed in Universities” a Harvard Medical report in 2004 said that Drug companies spend more on marketing than research. I could show many more without ‘making up’ percentages.By Jim
September 15, 2009 8:06 PM | Link to this
MWM and Bill have it right. Theses ins companies could care less about their clients health and well being. I’ve heard the horror stories too, and it’s all about corporate greed.By joe_mamma
September 16, 2009 7:58 AM | Link to this
Sorry Bill. Wrong again. The Journal of the American Medical Association has industry funding at 57%. That does include private foundations such as the Gates Foundation which pour in billions as well. Just because research is done a university does not mean it is federally funded. Nice try though… http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/11/1333By Bill in Brookville
September 16, 2009 8:35 AM | Link to this
Check out sickforprofit.comBy joe_mamma
September 16, 2009 1:48 PM | Link to this
Bill, You do realize that sickforprofit.com was founded by uber-lefty Robert Greenwald and is part of the Brave New Foundation which partners with ACORN, CAIR, Moveon.org, SEIU and a host of other socialist and leftist groups? I wouldn’t want anyone to think you are a socialist or anything. http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/partners.php