Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
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.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > March > 16 > Entry
Editorial: Health care reform partly in Ohio’s hands
“Ohio gets full court press,” was one headline on Politico.com for much of the day Tuesday, March 16.
It was in reference to the fact that President Barack Obama is pushing wavering Ohio Democratic members of Congress hard to vote for health care reform.
There’s no hope of any Republicans voting for the bill, so it all comes down to the Democrats. Specifically, 216 “yes” votes are needed for a majority (after vacancies are accounted for).
A dozen or so members have been on the fence, with possibly as many as four of those reps from Ohio.
President Obama, when he was in Strongsville on Tuesday, was unabashedly courting Cleveland’s Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who voted “no” on health care reform last year because it didn’t go far enough. (He’s a supporter of the single-payer plan, effectively extending Medicare to everyone.)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, from the Toledo area, has had concerns that there aren’t enough restrictions on public money going for abortion. Rep. John Boccieri, from near Cleveland, has been noncommittal, and he didn’t show for the president’s appearance.
Finally, Rep. Steve Driehaus, from the Cincinnati area, has gotten the attention of the administration, with the vice president flying in to host a fundraiser for him.
That Ohio would be in the thick of things isn’t shocking. The state has a large number of uninsured. Many families have gone from having profoundly good health insurance — because someone in the household worked in manufacturing, especially auto manufacturing — to having no coverage.
Meanwhile, the state is also not reflexively Democratic or Republican, Depending on how you see it, Ohio voters can be fickle, independent or suspicious of both parties’ big ideas.
If health care reform is defeated, absolutely that will be embarrassing for the president and Democrats. But political victory or defeat is not what this decision is about.
The country is at a juncture:
Are we or aren’t we going to extend affordable health care to nearly all Americans? And are we going to insist that Americans who can afford to buy insurance do so, while also requiring those who can’t pay the full cost still pay something toward coverage?
There is much that’s wrong with the pending bill, but there is much that’s wrong with every massively complicated piece of legislation.
Morevoer, does anyone believe that there isn’t a lot wrong with the current system — 50 million people without coverage; an insurance system that protects you when you’re well, but kicks you to the curb when you get sick; cost structures that result in huge sums being spent on marketing and processing claims instead of services to patients?
Will a lot of effort have to be put into fixing things that are not right if the bill passes? Absolutely. That is the nature of doing something complex. But it happens all the time, too, when Congress makes far less historic, sweeping change.
Republicans would have you believe that this legislation is so awful that the only solution is to start over. That is not a plan; it is a stalling strategy. But stalling for what?
The current system is unsustainable for everyone. Insurance rates keep going up both for businesses and individuals. Young people continue to choose not to buy insurance, sticking hospitals and those who do buy insurance with their bills. Medicaid rolls are soaring, forcing states to limit eligibility, cut spending elsewhere and reduce how much they reimburse doctors. People who want to buy insurance can’t get it if they’ve ever had a serious illness.
The canard that the plan is socialized medicine is ridiculous. Private insurers would have all the business they have today and more because of the requirement to purchase coverage.
Win or lose this vote, the president and Democrats are in for tough political times. At least if they win, some 30 million people will get health insurance and some immoral elements of a broken system will be no more.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Health Care, National Politics, National government
Comments
By John
March 16, 2010 6:57 PM | Link to this
The mindset represented in this editorial is precisely the reason I no longer subscribe to your paper or never will again. Political victory and control is exactly what this is all about. Your lack of intellectual honesty is glaring.
By Kurt
March 16, 2010 10:47 PM | Link to this
The gov turns down for people than all the insurance companies combined, and it is gov intrusion that is most of the problem right now, and i stand with John, after 27 years (seven days a week) i no longer that the fishwrap either.
By Maphis Houston
March 17, 2010 7:57 AM | Link to this
The writer of this article makes it sound like we are fools and should accept the health-care bill. We are not fools and don’t want this bill. We want to start from scratch. Obama wants to be a ruler instead of a leader! Vote that bill down!
By joe_mamma
March 17, 2010 8:11 AM | Link to this
To continue to insist that this healthcare plan is not “socialist” is disingenuous and down right silly. It’s not socialism? Really? It’s ultimate goal is FORCED equality of healthcare consumption. SOCIALISM. The government will MANDATE what is covered. SOCIALISM. It FORCES the citizens to purchase insurance. SOCIALISM. It will MANDATE what an insurance company can charge and how much they can increase prices. SOCIALISM. If you are for Obamacare then fine. Just don’t misrepresent what it is.
By tommyv
March 17, 2010 9:09 AM | Link to this
Martin: It is curious you mentioned nothing about the “process” the Democrats are using to ram this through. Are you in favor of reconciliation? Are you in favor of a “deemed passed” procedure? Are you in favor of the Florida, Nebraska, and Louisian shenanigans? Do you want a hot dog with that Kool-Aid? Martin, do you ever think beyond your flaming liberal nose? People have seen the plan, seen the corruption, and they don’t like either.
By Alexis deTocqueville
March 17, 2010 10:09 AM | Link to this
“The American republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the publics money”..Sixty-eight percent of the newly insured (in Massachusetts)since 2006 receive coverage that is heavily or completely subsidized by taxpayers.(WSJ)..Those that oppose this health bill do so due to the lack of understanding of what the ultimate cost and outcome will be. One can appreciate that the Ms. Belcher is following her party’s line,but can one honestly say they understand the outcome of a bill that is still being negotiated?
By parental
March 17, 2010 10:26 AM | Link to this
How did 40 million uninsured get to be 50 million? Why do you continue to include illegal aliens in this total? Obama tells us they won’t be covered. I think he will find a way to cover them. Why is starting over in a truly bi-partisan fashion bad? This plan means more gov’t control of health care. Reforms are needed but Obama’s plan is just another attempted take over. None of the money estimates will turn out to be true, care WILL be rationed like every other country with socialized health care. According to a survey of doctors in the New England Journal of Medicine, health care quality and quantity will drop under Obama’s plan. Is that what the editorial writer wants?
By bobby
March 17, 2010 10:28 AM | Link to this
Dennis Kucinich just rolled over. Let’s hope he got medicaid exemptions for Ohio for his vote!
By DG
March 17, 2010 11:39 AM | Link to this
I think this editorial misses several key points that are necessary to have a honest debate: The Senate health care bill is fiscally unsustainable, taking in 10 years of revenue for 6 years of services in order to be “budget neutral”. This was pointed out by the CBO when the bill was scored. I’m surprised that this editorial did not at least mention this fact when lamenting the burdens of health care costs. Surely the American taxpayer deserves a seat at the table when discussing how to solve this “crisis”. This bill isn’t socialized medicine… yet. By changing the economics of insurance, this bill paves the way for a government option, then a single payer system. By forcing insurance companies to take anyone with a pre-existing condition, it becomes impossible for insurance companies to remain profitable and solvent (this is economics 101). When insurance companies either balk at this or go out of business, in comes the public option, which CAN operate at a loss in perpetuity. With the government being able to offer services below costs, the remaining insurance companies head for the door, thus leaving you with one provider: Uncle Sam. To call this socialism isn’t a scare tactic, but rather a political and economic reality. Passage of this bill does not mean 30 million people will be covered immediately. Let’s say that the Senate bill passes the house tomorrow and is signed by the President by week’s end. A person who currently has no health insurance will not be covered next week. In fact, assuming nothing else changes, they won’t be covered next year, nor the year after. Not until 2014 would this bill actually produce benefits. So, whats the rush?
By Stephen
March 17, 2010 10:27 PM | Link to this
Pass the Bill already! Its been a year! Get er done boys and girls….get it done!
By Antonio Licata
March 18, 2010 12:00 AM | Link to this
Regarding the editorial column on 3/17/10, I think that health care reform needs to include these things: Tort reform. The major factor in costs, other than utilization of the system, is liability. Portability of insurance from employer to employer. Ability to purchase insurance across state lines for competition. This bill has it wrong - the basics should not be paid for by insurance - the catastrophic events should be. The patient should be encourage to pay for their own preventative and healthcare maintenance by having tax deductible HSA’s. Then, if something major happens, insurance kicks in. We need to have a measure in place to encourage the care of the indigent. One solution is to allow doctors to deduct the uncompensated care that they provide. This incentive will give patients greater access to the system. Your opinion that this plan will not lead to socialized medicine is wrong. The government already has too much control on medical fees and this system will only strengthen that position which eventually will put private insurance companies out of business. If the Democrats do win and 30 million people are insured then the taxpayers, physicians, and patients will lose. Those people do have access to care now, but under the new plan, the cost of their care will be funneled through a highly inefficient government system. So inefficient that they must tax us for 4 years before the system is in place to even begin to pay for it.
By John Painter Jr.
March 21, 2010 12:09 PM | Link to this
I commend your newspaper for its thoughtful endorsement of the health care bill. But I find dismaying the hysterical rants of some opponents, who obviously have bought into the GOP’s specious arguments against the historic legislation. But they did’t like Social Security or Medicare, either. I think the paper’s next crusade after the bill becomes law is to chase John Boehmer from public office and replace him with someone who embraces the common good, not petty politics. It is strange to me also that the GOP unanimously opposes health care reform. Could its real motive be a desire to crush President Obama’s historic effort simply because he’s black?
By waminvannabof
July 18, 2010 1:36 AM | Link to this
Hi, Good evening. I like www.oxfordpress.com because I learned a lot here. Now it’s time for me to pay back. Why I post this guide on this of www.oxfordpress.com is to help visitors solve the same problem. Please contact me if it is off topic here. This is the guide, wish it would help you. Guide: How to convert AAC to MP3 with the Xilisoft AAC to MP3 conversion tool How to convert AAC to MP3 ? Xilisoft Audio Converter can do this. This AAC to MP3 converter can convert between many popular audio formats, such as MP3, WAV, WMA, MP4, M4A, MP2, VQF, APE, OGG, AAC and FLAC etc. One of featured function is that Xilisoft Audio Converter supports converting AAC to MP3 , MP4 to mp3. In addition, you can also use it to convert video formats including AVI, MPEG, WMV, ASF to all popular audio files. Please free download and follow me step by step tp convert AAC to MP3: I. Introduction of this AAC to MP3 converter: Converting AAC to Mp3 and converting MP4 to MP3 is so easy with this AAC to MP3 conversion and M4A to MP3 conversion software. How to convert AAC file to MP3 will never confused you. Converting AAC to Mp3 and converting MP4 to MP3 become and enjoyable thing. Features of this AAC to MP3 converter: With Xilisoft Audio Converter, you can make batch conversion; you can copy ID3 tag between audio formats (reserve ID3 tag during conversion); You can select the compression method, sample rate, bitrate, stereo or mono when converting your files; you can select whether delete or keep the original files; And when converting to MP3, bitrate, VBR or CBR, stereo or mono are selectable etc. II. How to convert AAC to MP3: setp 1 : Open the file: Step 2: Settings: Step: 3 Set the output folder: Final Step: Encoding…… What an excellent AAC to MP3 conversion software. If you still don’t know how to convert AAC file to MP3 , you should try this powful AAC to MP3 conversion software. and then you will find that converting AAC to Mp3 is a magic.