Filed under: Health Issues, political issues | Tags: Health Care, President Obama
Obama Campaign Vow of Public Debate on Health Care Fading
by David Lightman and Margaret Talev
WASHINGTON – Campaigning for president, Barack Obama said repeatedly that any overhaul of the health care system should be negotiated publicly and televised for all to see. Throughout this year’s negotiations, however, the big deals have been struck in secret.
U.S. President Barack Obama listens to a question during a forum on healthcare at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia July 1, 2009.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES POLITICS HEALTH)With tax increases and limits on what’s covered among the possible ways of offsetting perhaps $1 trillion over a decade in expenses, neither the administration nor Congress is willing to give up its right to do the most sensitive talking in private, as it’s always been done.
“It’s unrealistic to think every aspect of the negotiations is going to be public,” said Senate Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, traveling with Obama in L’Aquila, Italy, said Thursday that “this president has demonstrated more transparency than any president.” He said that Obama had participated in multiple town-hall meetings with doctors, nurses and providers to discuss revamping health care.
“I don’t think the president intimated that every decision putting together a health care bill would be on public TV,” Gibbs said.
The notion of televising negotiations behind a health care revamp was so central to Obama’s campaign promises of change and openness, however, that it became part of his stump speech as he traveled the country in 2007 and 2008.
He’d describe how televised deliberations would take place around a big table, with seats filled by doctors, nurses, insurers and other interested parties. As president, he’d joke, he’d get the biggest chair.
“Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN,” Obama explained in a Democratic debate in Los Angeles in January 2008, in language similar to many of his campaign stops.
However, the two biggest deals so far – industry agreements to cut drug and hospital costs – were reached in secret.
“They were private, yes,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., a key participant in the process.
C-SPAN, the cable public-policy network, did carry a White House Forum on Health Reform in early March in which the president spoke and participants fanned into working groups.
That was a kickoff event, however, not a negotiation. C-SPAN spokesman John Cardarelli said that beyond that, “There hasn’t been a collaborative effort of coordination of coverage of ’special events.’ ” The decisions about what to air are made independently on a case-by-case basis, he said.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s bill-writing sessions, which began about three weeks ago, have been open, and various committees and subcommittees have had dozens of public hearings.
The private sessions continue, however.
Four Senate Republicans met for an hour and a half Wednesday to discuss health care with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Separately, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and John Kerry, D-Mass., have been in intense discussions. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Office of Health Reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle are in constant, private contact with key players.
The House of Representatives could vote on a plan before the August recess. The Senate is poised for a longer debate. Assuming they pass differing plans, any final product would emerge from a conference committee, whose negotiations typically offer even less public scrutiny.
Lawmakers, health care interests and public policy experts acknowledge that Obama’s campaign vision hasn’t exactly come to pass.
“Sometimes for people to say what’s really on their mind, it helps to do it outside the public eye,” said Senate Finance Committee member Thomas Carper, D-Del. “Could the process be more transparent? I suppose it could be.”
The health care negotiations are “no different from any other negotiation over the years when deals are struck quietly,” said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee and a member of the health committee.
Some experts said that Obama’s decision, once in office, to ask Congress to write the legislation rather than repeat the Clinton administration’s failed approach in 1993 of writing its own bill and delivering it to Capitol Hill meant that the president was relinquishing control of how public the process would be.
They said that despite all the private talks involved in this year’s effort, it was still far more open than others had been, including the Clinton plan.
“I think it’s been as open as it can be given the way things work around here,” said William A. Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who’s now affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution, a research center.
In contrast, Galston said, the Clinton health care task force was “a systematically insulated process. We had hundreds of participants on the inside, but it was not a process that was designed to be open to public scrutiny during the actual drafting. What’s happened now is significantly more public.”
Last month, Baucus and the pharmaceutical industry announced on a Saturday afternoon that they’d reached a deal to cut drug costs for elderly people. The White House gave the talks “its blessing,” said Ken Johnson, a senior vice president at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “The average person doesn’t understand our business model.”
Vice President Joe Biden formally announced another deal Wednesday, in which leading hospital groups would accept $155 billion in cuts to government programs. Biden and the hospital executives who flanked him declined to take questions from reporters.
One participant who agreed to talk later, Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, said that her group had been in “constant conversation” with policymakers, which had “accelerated in the last month.”
In May, two Senate committees, Finance and Commerce, held three days of closed-door meetings to discuss health care legislation. One of the meetings lasted eight hours, and participants said that no agreement was reached on the biggest controversy, a public-insurance option.
Committee members said this week that none of these deals or meetings violated the spirit of transparency.
In a twist, the post-campaign version of Obama’s grass-roots group, Organizing for America, now controlled by the Democratic National Committee, sent an e-mail this week to supporters asking them to call their lawmakers and urge them to back Obama’s concept of health care restructuring.
“The behind-the-scenes committee negotiations aren’t front page news,” the e-mail said, but warned that “as we speak, key committees in Congress are weighing options and making final decisions about how to tackle health care reform. This could be one of the last opportunities to shape the legislation before it’s written.”
(Steven Thomma contributed to this report from L’Aquila, Italy.)
McClatchy Newspapers 2009
11 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I recall you singing the praises of this man, oh dear how times change. did you know your senate passed a bill to change the number of terms a president may serve? Go on search for it and tell me I’m wrong. It was obama and his cronies that passed it recently.
—————————–
My comment:
I will check it out and let you know.
For the record I didn’t vote for Obama because he didn’t earn my vote. I did try and give him a fair chance. Which is more than you White Nationalists/Racialists did.
Comment by Stormfront Nazi July 12, 2009 @ 9:21 amIdol worshipper!
hail mary full of shit………..
RAHOWA
Comment by Stormfront Nazi July 12, 2009 @ 3:50 pm———————-
My comment:
Sticks and stones may break my back but words will never hurt me, my WN stalker.
lol, great comeback sissy
—————-
My Comment:
I strive to please.
Though if you were the last man on earth and I was the last woman on earth, human kind would die out, because I will never strive to please you, lol.
Comment by Stormfront Nazi July 13, 2009 @ 5:03 pmps. did you find that law I was talking about?
————————–
My comment:
I am on the Senate site now, and no I haven’t found the Bill you are talking about. Do you have the number of the Bill? Any info that would help me to verify if what you are saying is true?
Comment by Stormfront White Nationalist Man July 13, 2009 @ 6:41 pmMan I will have to search it at SF, give me some time.
Comment by white Nationalist July 14, 2009 @ 7:49 pm———————–
My comment:
ok
HANGING OF THE GUARD
Hail King Obama: President for life
Move under way to repeal Constitution’s term limits
Posted: January 16, 2009
11:40 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill’s language, proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”
In the past, some presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment, including Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan.
In 1807 Thomas Jefferson, however, warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings.
“If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice,” Jefferson wrote to the Legislature of Vermont, “his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.”
(Story continues below)
Presidential term limits, however, were not “fixed by the Constitution” until ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Congress passed the Amendment on March 21, 1947, shortly after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first and only president to be elected to more than two terms – in Roosevelt’s case, four. The Amendment was ratified by the required number of states on Feb. 26, 1951.
The 22nd Amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate.
In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano’s proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures.
H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose. A similar resolution, H.J. Res. 25, was also proposed the same year and received co-sponsorship from a bipartisan group of six other representatives. During Reagan’s term of office, Rep. Guy Vander Jagt, R-Mich., repeatedly proposed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
At the current time, H.J. Res. 5 has not tallied any cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office.
Thomas Jefferson, who became the second vice president of the U.S. after Washington declined to run for a third term and who then later became the third president, not only affirmed following the Washington’s example, but also foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment.
“General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years,” Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. “I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”
In the same letter to the Legislature of Vermont where he warned of a presidential monarchy, Jefferson further explained why he refused to run for a third term.
“Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind,” Jefferson wrote, “I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office.”
WND attempted to contact Rep. Serrano about his reasons and argument for repeal of the 22nd Amendment, but phone calls to his communications director were not returned.
This not the one I read but it will do.
Comment by white Nationalist July 14, 2009 @ 8:00 pmhttp://www.examiner.com/x-9345-Baltimore-County-Republican-Examiner%7Ey2009m6d30-No-term-limit-for-President-Obama
Another one.
Next Article
Baltimore County Republican Examiner
No term limit for President Obama?
June 30, 11:01 AM
70 comments
ShareThis
RSS
Email
Print
Honduran president overthrown
Hondurans celebrate ousting of Zelaya (AP/Javier Galeano)
A resolution, H.J. Res. 5, was introduced into committee on January 6, 2009 which seeks to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, thus removing term limits for U.S. presidents.
Yes, you read it right. Democrat Representative Jose Serrano of New York wishes to allow unlimited terms for President Obama.
The presidential term limit was ratified as an amendment to the Constitution in 1951. However, our founding fathers adhered to the principle of a two-term limit on their own accord. The only president that served more than two terms was Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt, who served four non-consecutive terms.
Shall we go the way of the Venezuelan dictatorship? Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and President Obama both expressed opposition to the recent ousting of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, calling it a coup, rather than a legal overthrow of a president who was violating Honduran law and attempting to change their constitution to permit him to stay in office indefinitely. The action had gone through the proper legal process, was voted on by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress, and had the support of the majority of the people.
According to an AP report, Obama stated, “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections,” he added. “The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. … We don’t want to go back to a dark past.”
What’s he afraid of? Why would Obama side with a tyrant rather than the people of Honduras? Could this “precedent” be a threat to his future plans?
The AP article also reports that Obama said the United States will “stand on the side of democracy” and work with other nations and international groups to resolve the matter peacefully. What does this mean – “work with other nations and international groups”? Does this mean he intends to intervene in the results of the Honduran political process in ousting their tyrant?
I am outraged by our president’s support for a power-hungry tyrant over the will of the people.
REPEAL THE 22ND AMENDMENT
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President of the United States four times. FDR died early in his fourth term after serving three full, successful terms. It was his leadership that brought our great country out of Economic Crisis and War.
Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947 to limit future Presidents to two terms and took the choice out of the hands of the American People, where it belongs.
History has no way of determining what would have happened to the United States if Roosevelt had been limited to two terms and had been unable to lead us out of the Great Depression and through World War II. With our current crisis, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great – we must act now!
thats three more, I think enough for you read up on it.
Comment by white Nationalist July 14, 2009 @ 8:05 pmThank you for posting the links. I will check them out. They were in the spam folder so that is why I am just reading them now. It wasn’t that I was trying to not respond.
Comment by chrisy58 July 15, 2009 @ 6:53 pmForget about it, not interested in your comments anymore. Considering you delete all mine.
You are deleted this time.
—————————-
My comment:
That is your choice. It most likely is for the best. We always end up fighting anyway, so good luck and have a good life on Stormfront. (lol)
Comment by Stormfront White Nationalist Man July 15, 2009 @ 8:08 pmI agree it is fighting,perhaps we could have disagreement of opinion, and if coupled with mutual respect and avoid the generalized assumptions then discussion is possible.
Comment by Garfield July 16, 2009 @ 4:27 pm———————–
My comment:
I like the garfield name, lol.
Garfield,
Again your comment ended up in spam, so I didn’t see it until this morning.
As you get to know me better you will find that I am a very kind hearted person. I always believe in second, third and even forth chances.
Yes, agreeing to disagree is very good. I do that all the time. It is not a cop out, but a way for people to continue to discuss things in a calm and reasonable matter.
Welcome back Garfield!!! I like the new name.
Comment by chrisy58 July 17, 2009 @ 3:28 pm