February 25, 2010 in Nation/World

Health summit: Heated talk, little agreement

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — With tempers flaring, President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans clashed in an extraordinary live-on-TV summit Thursday over the right prescription for the nation’s broken health care system, talking of agreement but holding to long-entrenched positions that leave them far apart.

“We have a very difficult gap to bridge here,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican. “We just can’t afford this. That’s the ultimate problem.”

With Cantor sitting in front of a giant stack of nearly 2,400 pages representing the Democrats’ Senate-passed bill, Obama said cost is a legitimate question, but he took Cantor and other Republicans to task for using political shorthand and props “that prevent us from having a conversation.”

And so it went, hour after hour at Blair House, just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

Obama and his Democratic allies argued that a sweeping health overhaul is imperative for the nation’s future economic vitality. With the marathon policy debate available from start to finish to a divided public, Obama cast the health care crisis as “one of the biggest drags on our economy,” tying his top domestic priority to the issue that’s even more pressing to many Americans.

“This is the last chance, as far as I’m concerned,” Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.

Obama lamented partisan bickering that has resulted in a stalemate over legislation to extend coverage to more than 30 million people who are now uninsured. “Politics I think ended up trumping practical common sense,” he said.

And yet, even as he pleaded for cooperation — “actually a discussion, and not just us trading talking points” — he insisted on a number of Democratic points and acknowledged agreement may not be possible. “I don’t know that those gaps can be bridged,” Obama said. “If not, at least we will have better clarified for the American people what the debate is all about.”

With hardened positions well staked out before the meeting, the president and his Democratic allies prepared to move on alone. Politically, it would be an all-or-nothing gamble in a midterm election year for Democrats bent on achieving a goal that has eluded lawmakers for a half-century.

One option is to try to pass a comprehensive plan without GOP support, by using controversial Senate budget reconciliation rules that would disallow filibusters. Alexander asked Democrats to swear off a jam-it-through approach, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended it. Obama weighed in with gentle chiding, asking both sides to focus on substance and worry about process later — a plea he made repeatedly throughout the day with little success.

A USA Today/Gallup survey released Thursday found Americans tilt 49-42 against Democrats forging ahead by themselves without any GOP support. Opposition was even stronger to the idea of Senate Democrats using the special budget rules, with 52 percent opposed and 39 percent in favor.

Obama’s skepticism about reaching consensus was vindicated as soon as the first Republican spoke — in opposition to the mammoth bills that have passed the House and Senate and in favor of a much more modest approach. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said Congress and the administration should start over and take small steps, including medical malpractice reform, high-risk insurance pools, a way to allow Americans to shop out of state for lower-cost plans and an expansion of health savings accounts.

“We believe we have a better idea,” Alexander said. “Our views represent the views of a great many American people.”

Disagreements were not always expressed diplomatically.

Alexander challenged Obama’s claim that insurance premiums would fall under the Democratic legislation. “You’re wrong,” he said. Responded Obama: “I’m pretty certain I’m not wrong.”

As with much in the complicated health care debate, both sides had a point. The Congressional Budget Office says average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, as Alexander said. But the policies would cover more medical services, and around half of people could get government subsidies to defray the extra costs.

Obama and his 2008 GOP opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had a barbed exchange. McCain complained at length about what he said was a back-door process to produce the original bills that resulted in favors for special interests and carve-outs for certain states.

“We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over,” responded a clearly irritated Obama.

“I’m reminded of that every day,” McCain shot back, adding that “the American people care about what we did and how we did it.”

Said Obama: “We can have a debate about process or we can have a debate about how we’re actually going to help the American people at this point. And I think that’s — the latter debate is the one that they care about a little bit more.”

Generally, polls show Americans want solutions to the problems of high medical costs, eroding access to coverage and uneven quality. But they are split over the Democrats’ sweeping legislation, with its $1 trillion, 10-year price tag and many complex provisions, including some that wouldn’t take effect for eight years.

The Democratic bills would require most Americans to get health insurance, while providing subsidies for many in the form of a new tax credit. The Democrats would set up a competitive insurance market for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own. Democrats also would make a host of other changes, which include addressing a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit and setting up a new long-term-care insurance program. Their plan would be paid for through a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

Another alternative if bipartisan agreement eludes Obama on Thursday is going smaller, with a modest bill that would merely smooth some of the rough edges from the current system. The Republican approaches, for instance, would help people now struggling with costs and coverage but probably not put the nation on a path toward coverage for all.

A month after the Massachusetts election that cost Democrats their Senate supermajority and threw the health legislation in doubt, the White House has developed its own slimmed-down health care proposal so the president will know what the impact would be if he chooses that route, according to a Democratic official familiar with the discussions. That official could not provide details, but Democrats have looked at approaches including expanding Medicaid and allowing children to stay on their parents’ health plans until around age 26.

Obama himself hinted at a Democrats-only strategy. When asked by reporters as he walked to the summit site if he had a Plan B, he responded: “I’ve always got plans.”

“Not only are lawmakers polarized, the parties’ constituencies are far apart,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor who follows public opinion trends on health care. “The president is going to use it as a launching pad for what will be the last effort to get a big bill passed. He will say that he tried to get a bipartisan compromise and it wasn’t possible.”

The summit was held at Blair House, the elegant presidential guest quarters across the street from the White House. Leaders of both parties spoke, with Obama steering the debate as moderator.

It wasn’t a grand, or even particularly comfortable, setting. About 40 senators, representatives and administration officials were crowded shoulder-to-shoulder around a hollow square table, perched for the six-hour marathon on wooden chairs with thin cushions. Coffee breaks had been ruled out, so the only pause in the action came during lunch.

C-SPAN carried complete coverage, while news operations from cable networks to public broadcasting were making it the focus of their day.

15 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

SugarShane on February 25 at 9:17 a.m.
Is anyone getting sick of hearing about this? So nice that Republicans ran their campaign with McCain spouting off about bipartisanship, but as soon as they lose it becomes “Just Say NO.”
Its BS that we only have 2 parties, and are asked to pick the lesser of two evils. Its all just a big game. Presidents and senators are all wealthy, they dont really care about the people, they care about being reelected.
cowboy on February 25 at 9:26 a.m.
here, here sugar shane you hit it right on the nose. Good to see some people get it.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 25 at 10:13 a.m.
Back to health care please. I’d like the posters to focus on that. We all know the senate and house are self serving folks focused on re-election. What about healthcare? Let’s talk about government regulation and will it work. When the issues is over 12-20 million people costing such a huge amount…and rearranging what appears to work..why change the whole system for a mere 10-12 per cent of the American population?
If 90% of the US population are already taken care of, why change?
CNN polls released today show 75% are against this change. Merely 25% of the polulation likes Obama’s model wherein the governement oversees health care. Sounds a lot like Gregoire’s suspension of the tax laws clearly voted for by the people…..seems like the governing people think the voters are incompetent to know the issues….and will simply disregard what the polls and voters say.
misjustice on February 25 at 10:34 a.m.
Yes, Daisy Doo…let’s stay focused on the approximately 40,000 Americans that die every year due to the lack of access to affordable health care. And what about those that endure economic ruin due to serious illness? And what of those that go without health care until their situation is so dire that it can no longer be ignored? And what about our infant mortality rate; we are ranked one spot above Mexico at #35 in the “world.” And why are we the only developed nation that does not have universal health care?
These are serious, sincere questions that deserve to be addressed…
As long as we allow politics and monied interests to divide us we will not be able to unite and fight the powers that be. We citizens have more in common than any small differences worth fighting over…Some seem willing to leave their fellow citizens to fall by the wayside just to make a snarky political point…how terribly sad is that?
Access to affordable health care is a human right, not just for some citizens of this nation but ALL. Personally, I will not stop petitioning my government until universal health care is realized.
Charlie on February 25 at 10:39 a.m.
Daisy, it may all come down to one word,”power.” Having the power to regulate what, where and when people go to a doctor is what it is all about IMO. How may government programs run under budget and efficiently? I’m still thinking…
Diana on February 25 at 11:33 a.m.
For anyone who thinks this is too expensive, do you not realize your paying for it now? And not in a very intelligent way.
empyrius on February 25 at 1:12 p.m.
A trillion dollars over ten years for some kind of “universal” health coverage is just too much spending for “our” bankrupt government, but spending a trillion dollars every year on weapons and war is not even debated . . .
O, I get it, war and death provide jobs, while life, well …; life, now that will cost you money.
Wow! “Freedom” really is not free now is it.
jerrysw on February 25 at 1:40 p.m.
Somehow our legislators came to a bipartisan agreement for the best health care money can buy for themselves, but forget about the people that voted them into office. It’s time for sweeping reform throughout government.
jddavis on February 25 at 2:58 p.m.
Empyrius—The difference between government spending on Healthcare and Military (“weapons and war”) is that our constitution mandates funding of a military. The levels of military spending are constantly debated.
Misjustice—”Access to affordable health care is a human right, not just for some citizens of this nation but ALL. ” I am not sure what qualifies as a “human right”, or mandates others pay for it. I do believe heathcare needs major changes, however, I do not support the idea that everyone is entitled to free healthcare no matter what.
Scoutster on February 25 at 3:08 p.m.
Still waiting for the GOP to give a logical, workable alternative. They get as far as “tort reform”, which is a drop in the ocean (but the insurance cos, who pay for legislators, like the idea of government intrusion on THIS issue, but not on others).
After tort reform, there’s nothing.
This shouldn’t be partisan. This is a national emergency.
horse_feathers on February 25 at 3:42 p.m.
This isn’t about health care it’s about a power grab.
Shylock13 on February 25 at 3:45 p.m.
The major opponents to “health care reform” are private health insurance companies, private pharmaceutical firms, and private attorneys who deal in malpractice suits. All Senators and Representatives should publicly disclose how many campaign funds they receive from these special interests directly and indirectly, how “chummy” they are with the lobbyists representing those special interests, and whether they have ever discussed with them in any way future employment after they leave Congress. I predict that Republicans get far more from the insurance and pharmaceutical firms, and the Democrats get more from the attorneys. Neither party cares very much about us; but they do want to be reelected! Guess from where their major campaign funds come—special interests, which now have more control of Representatives and Senators because of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporate entities and, no doubt, unions, to use their own funds for political “ads” for or against anyone running. We, the people, have become a collective “vox clamantis in deserto”, a voice crying in the wilderness!
bdr on February 25 at 4:21 p.m.
I remember this debate over car insurance when it became mandatory………(now its affordable and people drive better)
The current plan gives you freedom…..
(FREEDOM TO GO BANKRUPT)
(FREEDOM TO BANKRUPT AMERICA)
And folks that’s no bull…the current plan is failing!
Id say insured or uninsured-2010
(your just a naked babe laying in the highway )
Insured people are happy because they arent ill……the second you are ill they become pre existing and your given the punt.
NO ACTION……IS ASKING FOR CERTAIN LOSS OF YOUR CONSTITUTION YOUR COUNTRY WILL BE BANKRUPT
IF YOU FOLLOW
Rep. Eric Cantor or BONERS ADVICE!
Scoutster on February 25 at 6:13 p.m.
Does anyone know where to find a list of the players at the table at the health care summit?
empyrius on February 25 at 6:40 p.m.
Universal healthcare is also Constitutionally mandated, “promote the general Welfare”. But we only need to acknowledge that the U.S. government is waging illegal wars all over the world, wars that Congress hath not declared even, to see that the American government abides not by that silly little piece of paper . . .
The U.S. Constitution was also written on hemp, marijuana that is, so the original document is actually an illcit drug!
Luckily George Washington is not alive today, because he would be in jail for manufacturing, and, it is alleged, consuming marijuana; so who can trust a document that was written by people who would be criminals in today’s society: har har har har. They would also be slave-traders, child rapists, & terrorists.
Who can trust a document written by terrorists that allows electoral votes to override the popular vote of the citizenry?!?
The Constitution was written by a bunch of dead whte dudes; 21st America can do much better than that!