This is either really smart or really dumb. From The Hill: Dems Hedge on Healthcare.
Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult. …
“We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates’ healthcare plans. “What they are doing is … laying out their ambitions.” …
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is “not sure we have the big plan on healthcare. … Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,” Schumer said. …
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said “the money is not necessarily there right now” to enact the plans and said calls to end the war in Iraq might consume Washington’s attention. …
Senate Finance panel Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said the groundwork is already being laid through hearings, but projected an uphill battle ahead. “If they try to solve all the problems, it’s going to be difficult,” Baucus said.
Ouch!
(Update: see comment for a 180-degree reversal clarification from Sen. Rockefeller, and this report on SEIU’s response.)
We all know and understand that during election time politicians converse about their “dream” state of the nation. They are often not feasible or realistic to achieve in the short time that they may have as the acting chief of state. The statements listed do not surprise me. The statements made by the candidates’ supporters are realistic and truthful. In response to reporter, I find your commentary interesting. Our nation was founded on democratic principles. A national healthcare program would be nice but it goes against the nation’s foundation. A national health care program is an ideology that is appropriate in a country that has developed their foundation reflective of a Communistic/Marxism theory.
Neither the Clinton or Obama plans provide quality, affordable health care for all and McCain is McSame – no different than having W at the helm for another hellish four years or, if you will, a combo of 12 years of the same failed policies all the way around that have put this great nation onto the fast track of becoming a banana republic.
The Clinton plan is Mittcare complete with penalties and forces people to choose between heating and eating in order to purchase crummy products they cannot afford.
The Obama plan at least spares adults from a mandate, so he says, and he does realize that the MA mess is hurting people – that many are worse off than they were before.
But with Patrick and Kennedy who support the MA nightmare standing behind him on the stump, it’s kind of hard to trust Obama. And his plan isn’t the answer to the health
care crisis in the richest nation in the world.
McCain seems to think we all have money to save and/or can pay our living costs with tax credits from health care savings accounts. Forget it.
John Conyers has the answer – HR676.
We must tell the presidential candidates that what they want is not what we want and it ain’t gonna happen their way. This is our country and according to the U.S.
Constitution, a government of, by and for the people; they are our public servants and represent us. (Deval Patrick and the MA legislature seem to have forgotten this fact.)
We want quality, affordable, guaranteed, equal health CARE for all – not another insurance policy from the profit-driven insurance industry – not what is going on in MA which is coercion, collusion and fraud under the guise of health care reform.
Update:
Sen. Rockefeller now says that’s not quite what he meant. From Ezra Klien’s blog: “So the actual position is rather the opposite of how it was presented in the Hill article. Rockefeller isn’t saying we can’t pay, so we shouldn’t try. He’s saying, essentially, money shouldn’t be the object here. We shouldn’t let budget mismanagement tie our hands on major priorities. Rather, take them out of the normal budget process where you have to balance new programs with cuts in other spending, get the major priorities done, and then set about fixing our fiscal house. It’s a radical argument, to be sure, but it’s radical in the direction of achieving health reform, not in the direction of impeding it.”