Democrats push for compromises on health reform

Democrats push for compromises on health reform
By Edward Luce in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: July 28 2009 17:30 | Last updated: July 28 2009 17:30
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/697edf32-7b91-11de-9772-00144feabdc0.html


Democratic congressional leaders were scrambling on Tuesday to come up with a series of compromises on healthcare reform that would satisfy their moderate, or “Blue Dog”, colleagues amid growing concern that the whole effort could get pushed back until September.

Barack Obama, who has attracted growing criticism from liberal Democrats for his reluctance to impose a detailed plan on Congress, on Tuesday took his argument to a “tele-forum” at the AARP, the group that represents senior citizens, in an attempt to pressure moderate Democrats to back reform.

But Mr Obama, who has made dozens of public interventions in the last few months with limited success, looks unlikely to achieve his objective of passing a muscular healthcare reform bill in the House of Representatives before its scheduled summer recess begins on Friday.

Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, has yet to decide whether to extend the session into next week to get a bill passed. Earlier this month, the Senate said it would delay any votes until Congress returns after Labour Day in early September.

“If you have delay in both houses then things are really up in the air and this could be bad for reform,” said Dean Baker, head of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, a liberal think tank. “It will give opponents of reform more time and momentum to pick apart what they oppose.”

The dispute between liberal and conservative Democrats is focused on the structure of healthcare reform, including whether to have a public insurance plan that would compete with private plans, and over how to pay for the $100bn a year expansion in public subsidies. Conservative Democrats are opposed to a public plan, which they say would tilt the playing field against private insurers.

In the House, the Blue Dogs are also opposed to a planned surtax on people earning over $350,000 a year, which would go some way towards helping fund the $100bn a year proposed expansion in coverage. In the Senate, moderate Democrats have teamed up with Republicans in the Senate finance committee to oppose a measure that would mandate employers to provide coverage to their employees.

Moderate Democrats say they are concerned about fiscal discipline, or “bending the curve” of healthcare costs downwards. But critics say that their actions contradict their words. “If you are in favour of fiscal discipline then why are you opposing an employer mandate?” says Leo Hindery, who advised John Edwards, the former Democratic presidential candidate, on his healthcare plan. “If employers won’t provide insurance then the cost will fall on the taxpayer.”

Others say that Mr Obama ought to have injected himself into the debate more vigorously instead of leaving the details up to his colleagues on Capitol Hill, which they say has inevitably lead to confusion with several competing and contradictory plans now circulating among different committees.

They also point out that the president has been handicapped by the absence of powerful voices in favour of reform, including that of Teddy Kennedy, the “lion of the Senate”, who is undergoing treatment for brain cancer. Chris Dodd, the embattled senator for Connecticut, is filling in as chairman of the Senate health committee in Mr Kennedy’s absence.

Also absent is Tom Daschle, the former Democratic majority and minority leader, who withdrew his name as Mr Obama’s nominee for health secretary earlier this year following revelations of longstanding tax arrears. The presence of either one could have helped rein in the objections of Blue Dog Democrats, they say. “What we are seeing is no less than an attempt at sabotage by the Blue Dogs,” said Mr Baker.

However, others argued that the failure to meet Mr Obama’s deadlines for passing a bill in one or both chambers before the summer recess could have a silver lining. “This is a very complex and important piece of legislation and lawmakers need to take the time to get this right,” says Elizabeth Carpenter, a healthcare reform analyst at the New America Foundation, a centrist think tank. “Delay is not necessarily a bad thing.”