Richard Kirsch Responds to Daschle Resignation on Democracy Now
Posted on February 4th, 2009 by Levana Layendecker in News Clips
 |
Responding to the resignation of Sen. Daschle, Richard said:
Well, I don’t think it significantly will impede winning health care reform, because there’s such momentum and such commitment from the White House and the congressional leadership.
Having said that, as you just heard President Obama say, there were ways that Tom Daschle was uniquely equipped for the job. The thing about health care is that the policy and politics of health care are really intertwined very closely, and he does understand health care policy very well. And as a former Senate Majority Leader, he understands politics in Washington. So he was the first obvious choice for the job. He’s someone who had backed Senator Obama early in the campaign.
But again, he’s gone, and the real fact is that Obama is very strongly committed to getting health care done in 2009. The Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus is. Ted Kennedy is. We just heard this week, Henry Waxman, who’s the new chair of Energy and Commerce in the House being committed. And that’s what really matters. And then, the other thing that matters is this is a pressing issue that the American public really is demanding action on.
While Sen. Daschle has been a ardent advocate, comprehensive health care reform is bigger than one individual. People need relief from the health care crisis, and we will continue to fight to make that happen this year.
I think your Coalition is really confusing the public. You call yourselves, Healthcare for America Now, but you won't endorse HR 676 — the single payer bill of John Conyers. We know from study after study, that halfway measure that leave the for profit health insurance industry in place will not be able to create universal healthcare. Worse still, they cannot control costs or reduce paperwork.
What will happen with your proposals, as with all other attempts at "reform" that keep the health insurance industry in place, is that a few people will be added to the rolls of the insured. But while this happens, millions more will lose their insurance, and our non-healthcare system will continue to function very ineffectively.
Ellen,
I couldn't agree more. HCAN seems to be more concerned with preserving the status quo than reforming anything. Incrementalism will accomplish nothing (see Massachusetts), we need a total overhaul of the system, which is currently all about disease management and welth extraction.
While I respect your views, Ron and Ellen, I can't help but see a bit of hyperbole in them. If you see no difference between what HCAN is supporting and the status quo, you need to look a bit harder.
In particular, one of our non-negotiables is a strong public health insurance plan (which could look like Medicare) that would compete on a level playing field with private insurance. Everyone in America would have a choice to opt in to this plan if they wanted to.
Really, the only difference between HCAN and single-payer advocates is that we preserve that element of choice in the public health insurance plan, where single-payer would make the public option the only option.
It is a significant difference, no doubt, but it's hard to see HCAN's plan as anything near the status quo. Our current public insurance plans are anemic and not open to everyone.
Jason,
I also respect your views. My essential problem with the HCAN strategy is two-fold. Firstly, I am afraid that the private plans will be able to "cherry pick" among the young and the healthy; this will burden the public plan with only the eldest and sickest among us, dooming it through adverse selection. Furthermore, I worry that continued fragmentation of the risk pool will make achieving economies of scale impossible; therefore, we will be unable to contol costs. Single payer works, I believe that it is a serious mistake to take it off of the table. I don't want to see us all mandated into a prohibitively costly and inherently inefficient system. I've been a healthcare provider and health educator for the past thirty years. I know how dysfunctional U.S. healthcare is. Private insurers add no value to the system, and employers are being crushed under the weight of ESI. It is time for a serious overhaul.
RE: Cherry picking, the idea is to force everyone - both private and public plans - to compete with the same set of rules. So everyone would be able to opt in to the public health insurance option, and private insurers would have to offer a minimum standard of benefits, which would keep prices competitive all around. As we can see with Medicare, where most people who are eligible are on the plan, when public insurance plans compete, they can do well.
As for single payer, well, my argument is a political argument, but put simply, you'll never get 60 votes in the Senate. We're going to have to fight as hard as we can to get to 60 for a plan even including a public health insurance option. It'll never happen if we're saying it should be the only option.
But, I believe our reform proposal is a step towards single payer. Once people realize that public health insurance isn't the bogeyman the right says it is, single payer becomes the next step.