There’s a little more clarity about who’s handling health reform on Capital Hill and which proposals are currently in the lead.
In the Senate, sources indicate the Wyden-Bennett bill is currently off the table, set aside in deference to the proposal advanced by Sen Kennedy. I’m not particularly happy about this, as the Wyden-Bennett bill already has bipartisan support (a half-dozen Republicans and six Democrats are co-sponsors) and may actually reduce costs. But, no one is going to stand in the way of Sen Kennedy; he’s the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and his current situation along with relationships built up over three decades further strengthen his hand. Word on the Hill is Sen Barbara Mikulski of Maryland has been tasked with shepherding the health reform initiative thru the Senate. She takes over this responsibility from former Sen Hillary Clinton, who has moved on to better if not bigger things. (Mikulski is getting her feet wet on the HIT part of the stimulus package.)
In the House, reform is the province of Rep Henry Waxman’s Energy and Commerce Committee. Political junkies will recall Waxman won his chairmanship in a bit of an upset over John Dingell of Michigan, much to the rejoicing of greens and health care reformers. Those close to the Representative from California are looking pretty good right now.
Timing is a bit murky right now, as all attention is on the stimulus bill. It is also worth noting the recent passage of the S-CHIP expansion in committee came about because a single Republican Senator voted for the expansion. This may well indicate the Democrats are going to woo Republicans very selectively, adding just enough to pending legislation to get a couple sure GOP votes. If this tactic works, the Dems will essentially isolate the more conservative wing of the GOP, thus rendering them largely ineffective.
So far, oppositon to major reform is somewhat amorphous. Expect that to crystalize very quickly when the details start coming.
Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda
Joe: I thought your readers might enjoy a little “deep background” on national health insurance, written in the New Yorker by the fine surgeon/writer, Atul Gawande. He explains why national health insurance grew organically in the post-WWII years in France and Great Britain- while here in the states we wandered into the thicket of employer-based coverage – from which we have yet to emerge.
Here is the link:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande