It appears that the renowned compromise struck by Senate Democrats on healthcare reform may have been too good to be true. Their agreement, approved by both moderate and liberal Democratic senators, eliminated the public option health insurance plan, but replaced it with–among other programs–the ability for Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. That demographic is struggling with layoffs that leave them without an employer-sponsored health insurance plan; they are then forced to contend with a market with plans which either charge exorbitant premiums or refuse to cover them at all. Allowing them to pay premiums to the government's program for senior citizens seemed like a good idea, and one that could potentially get some skeptics on board.
However, independent senator Joseph Lieberman has expressed opposition for this strategy. His vote is very important, since he is part of the Democrats' razor-thin caucus majority. Without his vote, the chances of health insurance plan reform passing are slim. Majority Leader Harry Reid might be able to afford one or two pro-life senators such as Ben Nelson defecting over the ban on funding abortion coverage not being stringent enough, if a pro-choice Republican–such as Olympia Snowe–also switches sides. Lieberman's objections to any government health insurance plan–including an expansion of Medicare, on the other hand, are shared by the handful of amenable Republicans.
This setback was a surprise to party leaders, who thought they had reached an agreement with the hard-to-please Lieberman. The first hint of his opposition to the so-called Gang of 10's proposals was aired on Face the Nation, CBS' Sunday morning political news show. Although he spoke with Reid in private, such a public betrayal is no doubt dismaying to reform supporters claiming it was a "flip-flop". For his part, Lieberman claims that his problems with the Medicare buy-in plan were never a secret. He believes that there are other methods of making the average health insurance plan accessible to more Americans without so much federal involvement.
Democrats in the Senate, as well as President Obama, have voiced their desire to have a bill passed by Christmas; the holiday is under two weeks away! Lieberman is holding those hopes hostage, saying that there is much that needs to be removed from the hulking healthcare reform bill before he can vote for it. Specifically, he feels that the bill increases competition and choice among health insurance plan providers while offering sufficient subsidies to the 55-64 year old age group. Therefore, adding onto the national deficit is unnecessary. Moreover, doing so–via allowing people to pay premiums to Medicare or similar means–is detrimental to the chances of the overall bill. Lieberman is attempting to appeal to pragmatists, of which there are many in Congress. Still, how far are Democratic leaders willing to bend to accommodate his concerns?
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has viewed these intra-party struggles with relish. The Republican believes that it is yet another sign that the American public is against any potential changes to their health insurance plan. The passage of healthcare reform, formerly believed to be inevitable, is in doubt. Extended debate on such important legislation is positive; but the longer it drags on, the fresher it is in the minds of voters for next year's midterm elections. That is appealing to Republicans, but not as good for Democrats. It seems as if Democratic leaders will have to decide if they want to give the opposing party the satisfaction of having all of their hard work (while possibly neglecting other issues) be for naught, or if they will further weaken the bill in order to have something that passes and changes the status quo.
0 评论
发表评论