by Janet Hook
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) is in a tough spot when it comes to overhauling the nation's healthcare system. Major hospitals in his largely rural district have told him the bill pending in the House would cripple them financially. But Boucher also believes that the need for change is painfully obvious: When a free medical clinic was offered in a remote area of his district, some 2,700 people showed up.
"It put an exclamation point on the fact that we have 47 million uninsured Americans," said Boucher, who was one of five Democrats to vote against the bill when the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved it Friday night, setting the stage for a House vote in the fall.
Those political cross-pressures were evident when President Obama visited Boucher's district last week: There were demonstrators outside the event both supporting and protesting Democrats' plans to overhaul the nation's healthcare system.
During the August congressional recess, Democrats from across the country expect to be buffeted by those same cross-currents. Their meetings with constituents are sure to be dominated by the far-reaching healthcare legislation emerging from House and Senate committees.
The bill, which took a big step forward with the Friday committee vote, is designed to expand health coverage for the poor, cut costs, and improve coverage for people who already have insurance. It would also raise taxes on high-income people, mandate that businesses with more than $500,000 a year in revenue provide health insurance for their employees, and establish a government-sponsored health insurance option.
Critics, including some Democrats, fear the government plan could dominate the market and undercut private options. Hospitals in rural areas are especially fearful that a new reimbursement system would not adequately cover their costs.
Photo of President Obama and Rep. Rick Boucher above by Joe Raedle / Getty Images. See the full report on healthcare reform, President Obama and fellow Democrats in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:
Though Obama owed his 2008 election in part to his pointed critique of the healthcare system -- and many congressional Democrats won their seats on his coattails -- the issue now is a political live wire, and Democrats are treading gingerly.
"We are getting thousands of phone calls and e-mails, many deeply angry," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.). "Some want to do nothing, others want to do everything. We can't distinguish between what is just grumbling about change and what is a precursor of an earthquake."
For some politicians, the choice is simple: In Flint, Mich., unemployment is close to 30%, and Democratic Rep. Dale E. Kildee embraces government efforts to help cover the uninsured.
Republicans and other critics portray Obama's plan as a federal takeover of medicine, making it a much riskier issue for Democrats in more conservative districts. That includes the many Democrats elected in Republican-leaning districts in the 2006 and 2008 elections and the Blue Dog coalition of fiscal conservatives. That wing of the Democratic Party has bargained hard for concessions to help small businesses and rural areas, and to reduce the overall cost of the bill.
Rep. Allen Boyd, a Blue Dog leader, represents a district in northern Florida that exemplifies the mixed audiences that swing Democrats will play to: It stretches from conservative Panama City to Tallahassee, the more liberal state capital with a big academic community. "I plan to have a lot of town hall meetings," Boyd said. "The discussions will be spirited."
Another reason the issue is politically fraught: Healthcare touches virtually every constituent and interest group directly, unlike more abstract issues like global warming. And though 47 million people have no health insurance, most Americans do. Voters may have responded well to the general idea of improving healthcare during the 2008 campaign, but many are less sanguine about the legislation's effect on them as Congress begins to fill in the details.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center documented both the high level of voter interest and growing reservations about the legislation. Nearly a third of those surveyed said the healthcare debate was the most important story they were following in the news -- far more than the 19% who cited the economy.
But more Americans oppose than favor the proposals before Congress, 44% to 38%, the poll found. Opinions break sharply along partisan lines. But among independent voters, the trends are not encouraging for Obama: Independents who said they have heard a lot about the bills in Congress oppose them by 70% to 27%, Pew found.
Many congressional Democrats expect to spend a lot of this recess helping their constituents understand the pending proposals, as well as the current healthcare system, because both are so complex and so little understood.
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) says the many senior citizens and military veterans in his district are already enjoying the benefit of federal health programs, but some hardly seem to realize it. He cites an 80-year-old man who told him to "keep the government out of healthcare" -- even though Medicare had paid for his successful heart surgery 15 years ago.
Altmire, one of only three Democrats who voted against the healthcare bill in the House Education and Labor Committee, said the cost-cutting changes made last week in negotiations with conservative Blue Dogs would help make it easier for him to sell the legislation in his district, a GOP-leaning region he won from a Republican incumbent in 2006.
Democratic leaders are arming their rank and file for conversations with constituents. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, met with first- and second-term lawmakers recently to brief them on the issue.
His political advice: Define the issue yourself -- before your opponents do it for you.









Comments
47 million uninsured? Actually 46 million according to latest census data. At least 17 million could buy their own life insurance since their annual income is over $75K. Another 9 million are illegal immigrants. Let's get that number. That brings the number down to 20 million.
Do we need to overhaul the whole system for 20 million people? No.
Open up the health insurance markets between states, eliminate the incentatives for corporations to buy insurance and put the choices and decisions back in the hands of the people. Tax incentives for Health Savings Accounts to make health care cost come out of pre-tax dollars. Have insurance companies to incentives for healthy living.
For those who cannot afford insurance, give them vouchers that would allow them to buy plans in the private market.
Posted by: Terry | August 3, 2009 7:54 AM
The problem isn't the 47 million, or 20 million, who aren't insured, it's the 280 million, or 253 million, who are. They have a copay, a coinsurance amount, a deductible, and an out-of-pocket maximum, or some combination of those; beyond that, they're spending Other People's Money. Under those circumstances, there's little incentive for health care consumers to shop around for the best combination of cost and results, or to tough it out when they have a cold instead of running to the doctor for some antibiotics. If people had to spend more of their own money when going to the doctor (and I've always liked the idea of medical savings accounts, Terry), increased competition in the medical industry would help to bring costs down.
There's also nothing in the currently proposed legislation that would attack the cost of malpractice insurance. The neurosurgeon who did a cervical disk operation on me a few years ago pays $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance; before he pays a nurse, pays the office rent, feeds his wife and kids, he's got to cover that nut. I did my homework before I let anyone cut me; I couldn't find anyone who would say anything against this guy, but still his insurance premiums are more than most people make in a year.
What we need is a narrowly focused bill that helps that minority of citizens who don't have insurance, want it, but can't afford it. We need more competition inn the medical industry to let tyhe market bring costs to consumers down. We also need relief on the malpractice front, to reduce the cost of insurance and reduce defensive medicine. We don't need a complete overhaul of the curent system, which works well for the vast majority of people. Most of all, we don't need a government single-payer system, which would just perpetuate and exacerbate the current problems.
Posted by: DaveB | August 3, 2009 9:07 AM
If Obama's administration can't even run the billion dollar "Cash for Clunkers" program, why would any sane person allow them to make medical decisions?
The government "Clunkers" computers that crashed are just a preview of what ObamaCare will bring.
Posted by: Change in 2012 | August 3, 2009 9:14 AM
Anyone see Senator SpecULabor (D/Penn., no R/ Penn., no, shucks, now D/ Penn. again) and HHS Sec.Sebeluis get grilled about the Democrat Obamacare at a town-hall gathering in Pa? The boos and cat-calls with each lame and disingenuous statement they gave revealed that the American folks are on the ball and not being fooled. Ole' Spec looked like a deer caught in the headlights on a lonely road in the night and she was flubbing lost to make a coherent fact. If this was an indication of the type of response the Dems. will face across America (but you will not see it or read about it in the bias, slobbering MSM) then the Obamacare is toast or the Dems. that support this fiasco are toast in the next election. Even the Blue Dogs measly, BS compromise is toast. Goodbye Obamacare, RIP! Maybe they will look at the true problems and address what needs to be fixed (like waste/fraud, the cost of legal liabilities in healthcare, insurance for 12-15 million that honestly need help and not this bloated, fantasy figure they toss around disingenuously) and get a serious bill. But, after witnessing the great success of the "stimulus", that may be just a dream.
Posted by: bubba Porter | August 3, 2009 9:51 AM
Here are some facts, we may consider, when discussing healthcare reform, not Republican Healthscare !!
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/02/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Fact-Check.html
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | August 3, 2009 11:35 AM
Change in 2012, the "cash for Clunkers" is another example of "Other People's Money." It allowed people to buy a new car using Other People's Money (actually, yours and mine). When you haven't got to worry about where the money is coming from, you don't worry about spending lots of it. The Cash for Clumkers program is just a microcosm of what will happen if we have a national single-payer health program.
Posted by: DaveB | August 3, 2009 12:16 PM
As you know, bubba boy, that was an organized group of tea bagger/birthers out to disturb any civil discussion of health care. That's okay bubba, we'll smack 'em on the noggin the way you guys used to do to the war protesters. Maybe we'll send Sgt. Crowley after them.
Posted by: Flo | August 3, 2009 1:25 PM
I nominate terry for the 'shallow thinker' just put a band-aid on it award. Go terry!
Posted by: doc | August 3, 2009 4:42 PM
Doc,
Let's hear your brilliance
Posted by: Terry | August 3, 2009 7:10 PM
The Quack's silence is deafening.
Posted by: Terry | August 4, 2009 7:32 PM
The quack's silence is still deafening.
Posted by: Terry | August 5, 2009 7:53 PM