"

Health Care Gives Way

WASHINGTON — President Obama drew sustained laughter from Congress, especially Democrats, on Wednesday when he declared in his State of the Union speech that “by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.”

But after spending 2009 emphasizing that a health care overhaul was his top domestic priority, Mr. Obama gave it much less prominence in his address. He did not mention it until more than half an hour in — a sign of how imperiled the bill has become.

In the last week, Democrats have vigorously debated among themselves how to salvage the legislation. Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Wednesday that the Senate would have to take the next step and make substantial changes in its bill before the House would act again.

Senate aides said the changes recommended by Ms. Pelosi could add $300 billion to the cost of the legislation, which already carries a 10-year price tag of nearly $1 trillion.

House Democrats disputed the $300 billion figure.

Even if Democrats can resolve their internal disputes, they must contend with opposition from Republicans, who have been emboldened by their victory in a special Senate election last week in Massachusetts.

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know,” Mr. Obama said. “Let me know.”

Hearing that invitation, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, raised his left hand high.

Mr. Obama’s speech did nothing to resolve differences between the House and the Senate or to clarify the way forward. Just 20 weeks ago Mr. Obama stood in the same place and made an urgent plea to a joint session of Congress. “The time for bickering is over, the time for games has passed,” he said on Sept. 9.

“Now is the time to deliver on health care,” he said then.

But on Wednesday health care was wedged into a catalog of presidential priorities, which included jobs, the economy, education, bank regulation, energy independence, deficit reduction and the war in Afghanistan.

The change highlighted the risks for Mr. Obama in staking more of his political capital on legislation whose fate in Congress is uncertain — a bill that divides the Democratic caucus, that is reviled by Republicans and that makes many independent voters nervous.

In his speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama put health care in the context of his economic agenda, saying, “It is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.”

Mr. Obama acknowledged that he had not convinced the American people of the merits of his plan. He traced his failure to communication problems and to the opposition of special interests, not to flaws in the proposal.

“The longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became,” Mr. Obama said. “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.”

But Mr. Obama stood behind his proposals, which he described as a vast improvement over the status quo. “As temperatures cool,” he said, “I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed.”

More . . .

"

===================================

This article highlights what I saw.

Pres.Obama - apart from stating he wants it done - gave NO LEADERSHIP.. No unifying message to bring the factions together.  No guiding principles -- apart from one statement about (freedom and) human dignity that is arguably germane -- to get people to come together on the matter of health care (a la insurance) reform.


"It is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform"


Mr.President,
Excuse me, but I really do not understand that.  So, the health care insurance is now being done for the middle class's benefit? And not for coverage for the 37 million Americans who are not covered?

Exactly how does it benefit middle class? With assured continuity of coverage? That is an issue of concern to only 15% of the population today.  It probably ought to be for more people, but Mr.President, you failed to communicate WHY it is important. You had the perfect opportunity to do so with very few words yesterday. 

If you communicate why HCR is important in FAR FEWER and more impactful bulletized 2 page summary that is fact-filled and projects the reality a few years out, more people are likely to "get it." Instead, you are making all the decisions WITHOUT bringing people along with you!!  That does not work in consensus building at the national level; honestly it does not work in consensus building between two people.

Have you always gotten your way by raising your voice and insisting that you know better? Past year has shown us that you probably do NOT know better. So, why would we the masses trust your word now?

Well, here is a draft script.

HCR is important because of dignity of people, the need for proper care at earliest stage of onset of ill-health for the patient's benefit and for public health.  It is a "stitch in time" vs. "in the emergency room" and a public health disaster that we want to avert.  The country is aging and the risks of such disaster are higher. The country's economy has slowed, pressures on cost are higher and consequently more people are loosing insurance coverage; we need to ensure that people stay covered with insurance.  More than mandating it, we want to make sure that it is available, affordable and easy to obtain - so there are no barriers to obtaining it before any mandatory punitive steps come into play - and that is the objective.

If you mean it as you say it, it just might work.

S.



-- Edited by Sanders on Thursday 28th of January 2010 11:14:38 AM