Posted on 01/26/2009 1:43:15 PM PST by CutePuppy
A prominent House Democrat said he doesn't expect a comprehensive healthcare reform bill to pass Congress in 2009, saying an incremental approach to covering the uninsured would be better "than to go out and just bite something you can't chew."
House Majority Whip James Clyburn's (D-S.C.) timeline on tackling healthcare is at odds with the timetable proposed by Senate Democrats and could represent a major shift in the House Democrats' strategy of dealing with the uninsured.
During an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program that aired on Sunday, Clyburn said he doesn't anticipate that comprehensive healthcare legislation will be approved in 2009.
While noting he does not know exactly when President Obama want to move forwardwith a universal healthcare measure, Clyburn said, "If you take what we've done with [the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill] and then you follow with [more spending] on community health centers, you would have gone a long way to building a foundation upon which to build a universal access healthcare program.
"I would much rather see it done that way, incrementally, than to go out and just bite something you can't chew. We've been down that road. I still remember 1994."
Clyburn was referring to President Clinton and Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan, which failed to pass the Democratic Congress and helped Republicans gain control of Congress after the 1994 elections.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is battling brain cancer, has made it clear that he favors a comprehensive healthcare bill. When he gave up his seat on the Judiciary Committee late last year, Kennedy issued a statement that stressed his commitment to pass a universal coverage bill soon: "As chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I expected to lead a very full agenda in the [111th] Congress, including working with President Obama to guarantee affordable health care, at long last, for every American. This is the opportunity of a lifetime, and I intend to make the most of it."
Obama has not detailed his timetable for healthcare reform, but has emphasized that the recession will not stop him from launching his effort to revamp the healthcare system. The president has vowed to enact major healthcare reforms by the end of his first term.
After the 2008 elections, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) -- a key player in the 1994 healthcare reform debate -- said Congress could vote on a comprehensive healthcare bill by the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010. Stark, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee's health subcommittee, is a strong proponent of comprehensive healthcare reform.
Many Democrats believe the time is ripe to pass a universal healthcare bill in the 111th Congress because they control the White House and would only need the support of one, or perhaps a few Republicans in the Senate to clear the legislation. Democrats have similar majorities in the House and Senate to when they controlled Congress in 1993 and 1994.
A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Clyburn's remarks.
A party divided cannot stand!
There’s no standing left. The Republican party as it stands is washed up.
Another Obama lie.
The Democrats never really wanted universal health insurance. They just want a boogeyman issue to rile up the desperate base without health insurance to get them to vote Democratic.
You got that, Michael Moore?
Agree or disagree with mandates and the budgetary and fiscal implications, there has been only one major American politician who has successfully instituted universal health care in the States:
Mitt Romney (R-MA)
There isn’t enough “national pain” yet... just wait.
Don’t count us out yet. Obama is a one-term President. I’m not just saying this because I’m conservative, but looking at Obama’s record in the past week, I know he will fail. I don’t have to wish for it; I know it will happen. Even formerly good economists, like Paul Volcker, are going to sully their names in history because they’re doing Obama’s bidding.
(Paul Volcker correctly raised interest rates in the early 1980s and brought inflation under control, and is the only reason really to give Jimmy Carter any slack in a historical judgment. Ronald Reagan later reappointed him for a second term. However, this week, Volcker in almost a 180 degree about face, told Congress we need to bail out more banks and provide more inflationary and socialistic stimulus as the answer to avoid a prolonged recession. This is also a stark departure from Paul Volcker of 2007, who was calling Ben Bernanke a one-term chairman for his easy monetary policies.)
“Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is battling brain cancer”
... Let’s ship him off to Canada’s health system and see how he does. If he survives, then we can put it up for a vote.
If not, then maybe nationalized healthcare isnt such a great ideas.
“Democrats will try to boil the frog slowly, incrementally raising the temperature in the pot. “
- Yes. They already passed SCHIP expansion, which Waxman caled a ‘downpayment on nationalized healthcare’. Still, this caution is moderately good news, as they wont (yet) muck with private health insurance.
Our biggest dangers/threats are on environmental front and in the spending/taxes area, with the trillion dollar boondoggle. Stop that boondoggle and we can stave off socialism for a bit longer.
“Obama is a one-term President. I’m not just saying this because I’m conservative, but looking at Obama’s record in the past week, I know he will fail. I don’t have to wish for it; I know it will happen”
I heard that back in Clinton’s day. And if Volcker can sell his soul for bad policies, so can the elites as a whole.
I think the major difference with Clinton, IMHO, is that a Republican Congress aided the President is developing sustainable, sensible policies. That won’t happen this time around ... we have no chance of recapturing the US Senate in 2010, regardless of Obama’s standing.
Obamawama is NOT the POTUS, he is just a figurehead who says and does what he ordered to do by those to whom he sold his soul to for the office,
Women and children to be affected the most.
People keep being told how wonderful national socialized "universal" medical care is in other countries, but they don't see the other factors of how expensive or restrictive or inferior or political those systems are, because it's "there", and the grass is always greener "there". Massachusetts is pretty close and problems are visible.
Now they can be pointed towards Massachusetts as a [failed or failing] experiment, and told that they can do the same experiment or modify it to suit their own state, or learn from mistakes of "universal payment" for healthcare and bypass it altogether, instead of trying to have one-size-fits-all federal / national payment mandate. That's how HillaryCare was defeated - pointing to the unacceptable "devil in the details" of various implementations of the plans to various groups of people who will inevitably have to pay more for these plans and get less or inferior care.
Once people start seeing how much [more] it will cost them, and how much [less] they will be getting for it, these schemes will unravel, especially if Republicans can offer alternatives in line of optional individual high-deductible / catastrophic insurance, with optional HSA-type provisions.
Dems learned from 1994, if Republicans will stick together on the alternative(s), then the "universal healthcare" mandate will die the same way HillaryCare died. That's why Dems may try to do it incrementally, through SCHIP or in other ways.
You are not taking into account that there will probably be even more pro-leftest voters in ‘12, thanks to: an increase in more politically ignorant voters, an increase in more politically stupid voters, eventually allowing illegal immigrants to vote in all future U.S. elections, eventually allowing most criminals to vote in all future U.S. elections, and leftists successfully finding more ways to cheat in order to get what they want politically during all future U.S. elections. Leftists may even seriously decide to end having any more elections in the future!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.