Waxman: Yes We Can Reform Health Care This Year
To add to what Jonathan Cohn says here, part of the significance of House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman vowing to do health care reform this year is that he’s implicitly rejecting the common notion that progressives need to choose between action on health care and action on climate change. Those have clearly been the two big domestic priorities for a hypothetical progressive majority in 2009 for a couple of years now, and there’s kind of been an implicit tug-o-war between them. Waxman has a history as a health care reformer from the pre-1994 days. But he’s also one of the House’s leading environmentalists, and spearheaded a successful challenge to John Dingell for control of the committee specifically in order to move climate legislation.
By making these remarks, Waxman is signaling that he doesn’t see a need to choose. He thinks the House, at least, can take major action on both fronts. The Senate, clearly, is a harder hill to climb. But even keeping that in mind, I think this is the right instinct. There’s not a really a fixed sum of political capital that gets spent down. Instead, there’s an issue of whether or not the public mood and the mood on the Hill are conducive to big reforms. If they are, then you do as many big reforms as you can. If they’re not, then you’re screwed.
23 Responses to “Waxman: Yes We Can Reform Health Care This Year”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 30th, 2009 at 11:20 am
This makes sense. Since the Republicans will try to defend both the healthcare and environmental disasters, because they are profitable to the right people, we might as well divide their fire.
.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am
You can do both, but which do you think they should tackle first? I think it should be climate change because it’s politically easier to tackle than health care. People will pay more attention to health care (and want more debate) because it plays a more prominent role in their lives. It’s the type of change that tends to scare people, even if they welcome it because it’s about our mortality (in a much more visceral way than climate change)
January 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I think you’re right, that there’s no set limit on how much congress can get done in a year, but I suspect that timing and momentum are big issues. If leaders like Waxman are ready to push, then passing one big bill can boost morale to move directly to the next problem. (For one thing, if swing members of congress buy in on a major health care package, then they will be making a considerable investment in the success of the administration.) But if one big bill fails, then nothing else will get going.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Might this also be related to the agreement between Reps. Waxman and Dingell? After Waxman defeated Dingell in the caucus vote for the Chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the two agreed to give Dingell the position of ‘Chairman Emeritus’ and left major health care initiatives would in Dingell’s hands during the 111th Congress. (Please see “Waxman grants Dingell lead role on health care”.)
As the article states, “By granting Dingell a role as ‘the lead sponsor’ of whatever national health care legislation the committee considers, Waxman is giving the Dean of the House the chance to cap his historic career by realizing his father’s goal of universal health care coverage – Dingell’s father, a former House member, first introduced legislation creating national health insurance in 1943.”
January 30th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
But even keeping that in mind, I think this is the right instinct. There’s not a really a fixed sum of political capital that gets spent down. Instead, there’s an issue of whether or not the public mood and the mood on the Hill are conducive to big reforms.
Word.
I can’t imagine election year 2010 will be more conducive to major reform than 2009. I’ll take this opportunity to plug one of my quixotic proposals: let’s dump midterms in favor of four year house terms.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
You can do both, but which do you think they should tackle first? I think it should be climate change because it’s politically easier to tackle than health care.
Maybe, although you could also make the argument that the very difficulty of healthcare reform means we should tackle that first and earliest — so events unfold before the inevitable diminution of the president’s popularity numbers.
By the way, is anybody else still having to pinch themselves over the change in leadership?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
The big things in climate change are likely to cause significant difficulties even in a good economy. We should probably avoid those for now. While we should certainly look to ramp up R&D on alt fuels, I would hold off imposing carbon taxes or cap&trade for a bit.
Health care reform is in the same boat, to a lesser degree. There are good ways to spend money now – electronic health records, training programs for personnel shortages etc, but we should hold off on the things that might put large numbers of people out of work.
I would also do health care first because it will get harder over time while I think climate change legislation will get easier.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Climate change and health reform this year. Right.
I’ll make a bet with you. Any “action” we take on climate change this year will be very heavily, perhaps completely, weighted toward future – way, way off in the distant future – pain.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Re: I think it should be climate change because it’s politically easier to tackle than health care.
I disagree. Bill Cliton postponed healthcare reform too long and look at the result. Moreover healthcare reform will improve people’s lives immediately and obviously– and help the economy by fixing one of our biggest inefficienies.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:08 am
End of the year? That’s small ball, we can have universal health care by the end of February.
The military’s single payer plan, Tricare, was recently expanded to include reservists who buy into the system, for 2009, $44.71 a month for an individual, $180.17 for families (28% of total premium cost).
Here’s where the magic happens. Waxman goes into the conference committee and amends two code sections (summary below) to define reservists as well, everybody, and you have a pretty decent PPO plan available to everyone who wants to join. If you don’t like it, spend your 45 bucks a month on something else. Sure it means increasing the Pentagon budget, but what kind of terrorist is against funding the Department of Defense?
10 US 311 Militia: composition and classes
(a) AMEND The militia of the United States consists of all males and females at least 17 years of age and who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
10 US 1076d TRICARE program: TRICARE standard 1 coverage for members of the Selected Reserve militia of the United States
(a) REPLACE Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of a reserve component of the armed forces WITH militia of the United States
(b) STRIKE
(c) REPLACE a reserve component WITH the militia Of the United States. STRIKE for six months beyond the date of death of the member.
(d), (e), (f) REPLACE every instance of– a reserve component OR the reserve component WITH the militia of The United States
And… done. Both House vote to pass the stimulus bill, and its mission accomplished before Daschle has a chance to screw things up.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:11 am
Sorry, forgot to strike through— the second Code Section should read
10 US 1076d Tricare program: Tricare standard 1 coverage for members of the militia of the United States
March 1st, 2009 at 5:00 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:16 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:00 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra