September 9, 2009 in News, Nation/World, Region

Delegation reacts to Obama’s speech

• Print
• Email
• Share

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Barack Obama’s bid to reinvigorate the push for health care reform may have energized Democrats from Washington and Idaho, but Republicans still harbor the same reservation — opposition to a public option, which Obama signaled support for in the address.

Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho, is still hesitant about some of the president’s outline for reform, but said “now is the time” to act on a health care overhaul.

“It certainly was time for the president to assert leadership on this issue,” he said.

Minnick said he still does not think a government-run insurance entity is necessary, but as a member of the Blue Dog Democrat coalition he said Obama’s pledge to not sign a bill that adds to the deficit was reassuring.

“I think that’s absolutely essential in our age of trillion-plus dollar deficits,” he said.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said he wished the president had “taken the government option off the table,” but said the speech was “timely” and “called for.”

“The battle in our country over whether to shift to a government option in health care is an overarching one that we have to get past,” Crapo said.

Obama’s nod to Republicans – a suggestion to look at changing medical malpractice laws to make it harder to sue doctors – was too vague, Crapo said. Even so, it was “interesting he opened the door,” Crapo said.

Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said the speech didn’t clarify enough, and said “probably, not much has changed.”

“I was looking for details,” Risch said. “It’s very hard to disagree with generalities.”

The president’s nod to a public option was unacceptable for Risch, because “private entities cannot compete with a government entity.”

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., on the other hand, said Obama did a good job clarifying how reform would control costs and the factors in the current system that drive up costs. The most effective part of the speech was the president’s suggestion that health care is a moral issue, not just a political issue, she said.

“I think that played to that question of us as a country and making sure people get access to needed medical care,” Cantwell said. “I think it was a needed rallying cry.”

• Story
• Comments 01

One comment on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Ninch on September 10 at 7:47 a.m.

  At the beginning of Obama's speech he said he would give us details but later on in the speech he said he had no details. He also should have left out the partisan jabs, especially since he also said it was time to quit the partisan bickering. Obama also “parsed” his commitment that people can keep their existing insurance. He used to “promise” such, but now he says nothing in the health insurance reform will “require” that people change insurance. This is a hedge on the intended/unintended consequences of mandated “basic” insurance as well as the “public option.”

  His “promises” to preserve Medicare were just that… No Democrat has yet explained how “hundreds of billions” can be saved in Medicare without restricting services. He also keeps misrepresenting the fees paid to private insurance Medicare programs. Too many forget that our Congress years ago passed these “fees” as incentives for offering alternative Medicare programs… and that these programs in fact promote preventative care (which Obama wants mandated for all and paid for by insurance) which by all measures costs more (e.g. free mammograms and other cancer screening tests) … ergo the basis for additional federal fees paid to private Medicare providers. Obama is either very ignorant or he likes to use circular arguments.

  I very much doubt that Obama will keep his promise of not signing a bill if it adds one single dime to the deficit. The CBO estimated around a trillion dollars over ten years. But maybe Obama was parsing and nuancing again… maybe when he used the word “deficit” he was referring to the first two to four years before health insurance reform would take effect, whereas Obama would be totally constrained if he had used the term “federal debt” instead.

  After listening carefully, overall Obama's speech was nothing new except for a vague allusion to tort reform. VERY disappointing.

  Flag as inappropriate