On Monday, the media went gaga reporting on President Obama’s fancy health reform rhetoric that flowed alongside his introduction of the new surgeon general, Dr. Regina Benjamin. For lo these many months, the president has staked out a position as health care chief in absentia. That is, he has positioned himself above the dirty business of hammering out the legislation currently being squeezed by every special health care interest in town.
The New York Times reported that he rode back into Washington with guns a-blazing. Obama “appeared in the Rose Garden to cast himself as a kind of sheriff who had just come back to town.” Here is what the president had to say:
• “I just want to put everybody on notice, because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone. We are going to get this done.”• “Inaction is not an option.”
• “And for those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to happen, don’t bet against us.”
• “We are going to make this thing happen because the American people desperately need it.”
Comforting words perhaps to the public, many of whom believe that some massive overhaul of the health system is about to spring forth; and maybe even to members of Congress, who apparently are desperate for some presidential gravitas as the special interests tighten their grip over legislative language.
But do the words translate into support for such reform flashpoints as a public plan option resembling Medicare, or some wishy-washy version that might be held in reserve if the regular insurance market fails to work properly? Or taxing employer-provided health benefits? Or an individual mandate that would require everyone to carry insurance even if that means a family must forego some other necessity or pay a tax penalty? And then how many of the uninsured should be covered by the limited funding under consideration by Congress? And by when?
The answer is that we still don’t know what the president stands for. On CNN this Sunday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said that health care overhaul “needs to be owned by the House and the Senate,” and won’t be dictated by the president.
If that’s the case, then we urge the media—especially headline writers—to stop referring to “Obama’s health care plan” or to “Obama’s health care overhaul.” Better to call it Congress’s health plan.
We also suggest that reporters begin to pin the president down on what kind of reform he really wants. The AP reported that Obama had ruled out any tax increases for the middle class. But does that mean people making more than $250,000 will be taxed on insurance benefits from their employers? If so, will those taxes generate enough cash to subsidize insurance coverage for working people?
The one we really want to hear about, though, is the individual mandate. There’s been hardly a word written or spoken about it in the media, and it’s pretty clear such a mandate will be part of the deal. After all, making everyone carry insurance is the only way that insurance companies will agree to cover sick people. The public needs to know—and soon—how this requirement will affect their pocketbooks. Flowery words only go so far.
As usual, Trudy clobbers the nail on the head.
One additional question reporters might ask regarding proposals to tax health care benefits: Does that mean that every time my premiums go up and I get taxed more, I should thank ,my employer for giving me a raise?
Without overall price and cost controls on health care inflation, such taxation is worse than meaningless. It may seem to be geared only for the rich today, but even with adjustments for general inflation (something I've not heard discussed), health care inflation could continue outstripping average inflation and dip more and more deeply into the middle class in not too many years.
As one highly respected progressive authority on Social Security said to me last week, the real issue is more progressive taxation all around.
#1 Posted by Paul Kleyman, CJR on Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 02:47 PM
What does Mr. Obama stand for?
He has already said, and I heard him three times on television ( twice since he was elected and once during the campaign) that he wants a healthcare plan for us exactly like the plan he got as a member of Congress. That is clear enough, I think. We do not know what the benefits are nor the cost.
Not once have the national media picked up on these comments and questioned Mr. Obama about his Congressional healthcare plan. Nor have the media questioned any member of Congress about their healhthcare plan.
If you have to ask "what does he stand for", I suspect that the media have regarded his comments as a "throwaway" line, that he didn't really mean what he said. Thus, Mr. Obama has escaped questioning.
#2 Posted by D. Matthews, CJR on Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 06:23 PM
Pres. Obama has told everyone--constituents and Congress-- what is necessary. Congress is the one that makes the laws--at least so the Constitution mentions. The Democrats still haven't gotten it into their heads what the constituents need and want and the Republicans still seem to think "no" is the only answer. Yes, Bush told the Republicans--when they were in the majority--what and how they were to put things. That wasn't right then and it is not right now. Obama can say what he wants, how he wants it done and how it affects the population if the Congress doesn't follow through. The Congress--both parties--still prefer to play one-upmanship and see who can get more points than the other. None of that is beneficial to the country. I had to write a note to my Senator since she had started to think she didn't want the public option for health care. That option is the only way most uninsured will have a chance to be insured. Whether she saw it or not I don't know. I received no response on e-mail. Obama's remarks were what they needed and were really mild in most ways. The mess Congress had by Monday this past week wasn't worth the paper it was written on. From today's news most of what they had dropped has been re-instated. Maybe Congress thinks Obama doesn't bother to read their bills--like they didn't read the CIA report before voting for war with Iraq on false pretenses. They had better wake up or he will have to take them to the cleaners during August and the voters will have to vote to change their representatives. But then who's listening???
#3 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 10:22 PM
Whatsoever piles of steaming, pro-CorpoRatist codswallop are signed into law over "thePrez"'s signature, they will be touted and halloooed across the Universe as the "biggest, bestest, most amazingest, liberalest, helpfullest, grandest, reformingest, wonderfullest, super-abundantest REFORM EVAH!"
Not Jesus hisseff, rose from the crypt, could have done more, better, quicker, for more people than our St. Barry. The papers'll tell ya! The utterey, positively, astonishingly most Incrediblest job of butt-fucking the people and rewarding the parasites that will never be reported as such...
We have apparently traded an inarticulate, smirking, privileged bully for a literate ward-heeler with big ears and a winning (but no less 'shit-eating') smile.
Yup. Change...
#4 Posted by Woody, CJR on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 12:30 PM