Obamacare

Last Wednesday, President Obama gave a long overdue speech about his health-care reform goals. The speech helped clear up many uncertainties that have surfaced over the last couple of months around health-care reform. From tales of death panels to myths about covering illegal immigrants, rumors have spread among Americans and polarized the debate. Some have even come to fear reform and perceive the proposal as a government hijacking of their health. Therefore, we were pleased to hear Obama debunk these rumors and clearly articulate his vision for health-care reform.

Obama assured us that no death panels will be created by a reform bill, that illegal immigrants would not receive coverage, that federal funds would not suddenly go to pay for abortions, and, finally, that the plan will not add a dime to the deficit. We admire his speech for its clarity on the issues and its firmness on the guiding principles of reform. Obama has made plain that he will not back down and that he will not accept a compromise that threatens the prospect of reform.

We also admire the president for reaching across the aisle and making acceptable concessions in a serious attempt to rally bipartisan support for his vision. For example, he adopted a proposal to offer low-cost coverage to certain Americans with a pre-existing medical condition saying, “This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.”

Moreover, Obama has shown flexibility regarding his desire for a public option and seemed ready to welcome new and constructive ideas. We urge Democrats to explore and consider all serious proposals that may arise, regardless of the inclusion of a public option. One such proposal, favored by North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat, is to set up “co-ops” or non-governmental, consumer-owned entities to compete with private insurers rather than a government-administered insurance provider. Others, such as Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, a Republican, suggest implementing a “trigger option,” which would give insurance companies a window of time in which to implement reforms or else have a public option come into existence at the end of the window should they fail to meet certain benchmarks. Many other options are available, and we hope Democrats remain open to flexibility and give each alternative a fair consideration.

Bipartisanship, however, can be a double-edged sword. Whereas some Republicans, like Snowe, are well intentioned and are sincerely working on health-care reform in order to better the bill, others, such as Iowa Senator Charles Grassley and Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi, are wasting the president’s time by negotiating in bad faith. It makes little sense to attempt to bargain with senators so far the right, as opposed to centrists like Snowe as was done during the debate over the stimulus package passed earlier in his term. Obama would be better served to seek consensus with more moderate Republicans like Snowe and her colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins.

Another admirable aspect of the bill is the promise that it will not add to the deficit, but rather be funded by eliminating superfluous expenses in existing programs. Obama even proposed the idea of mandating spending cuts should projected savings not materialize. Current projections, however, suggest that reform would cost $900 billion over the next 10 years, and Obama’s speech did not delve into the specifics of how exactly he intended to pay for it. The president must clear up ambiguities on this matter in the near future if he is to command wider support.

Overall, Obama made his vision clear, defended his principles, and gave hope to a brighter future in the world of health care. We hope that representatives of both parties work together in order to find the proper cure for a seriously ailing health-care system.