Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Health Care Reform Advocate Praises New Obama Proposal at HHH Event

Bookmark and Share

In an event at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Monday afternoon, a leading advocate of health care reform addressed the latest proposal unveiled by President Barack Obama and stressed the need to move ahead and avoid the traps of passing incremental reform at this juncture in the legislative process.

Judy Feder, Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University and principal deputy assistant secretary for planning and evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services during Bill Clinton's first term, said Obama is "determined" to achieve health care reform and "This legislation has too much going for it to let it go down now."

Feder, an admitted "enthusiastic supporter and advocate" for Obama's plan, says the current political situation is such that either Congress should pass the main tenets of the president's plan now or do nothing. Feder stated that working on a "scaled down" version of health care reform would be just as challenging as crossing the finish line with the current proposal.

Professor Feder acknowledged the dissension that exists among Democrats - with moderates who are concerned the current proposal will lead to too much government and progressives in the House who are "skeptical" of the shortcomings of the current bill.

Still, despite its nearly $1 trillion price tag and its far-reaching effects of covering more than 31 million Americans, Feder characterizes Obama's new proposals as a "compromise" bill - "a compromise you can't walk away from...the bill is too good to let go."

Feder stated that if Congress does not act now, it will be "another couple decades" before politicians will try to pass substantial health reform again.

Regarding Feder's assertion that the bill was endorsed as "financially sound" by the Congressional Budget Office, panelist Stephen Parente, Academic Director of the Medical Industry Leadership Intitute at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, expressed concern that the cost projection of the President's proposal was correct - noting that the Medicare cost projections were widely underestimated from 1966 on.

Feder had harsh criticisms for several of the reforms advocated by Republicans in Congress (e.g. "Tort reform does not improve the quality of care") and characterized increased premiums by insurance companies whose profits are rising as "unacceptable."

When asked why public opinion is against the President's plan, Feder stated the opposition among the public was the result of both "overpromising" by progressive advocates of health care reform and "downright dishonest treachery" by its opponents.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Klobuchar and Franken to Get Boost in Senate Seniority After 2010 Election
Next post: Democrats Hold Edge Over GOP for Average Years of Service in U.S. House

2 Comments


  • When will politicians see the big picture. They need to fully define the problems in order to address health care reform. The issue is not only about covering more Americans, it is about protecting those with coverage as well. Six of ten personal bankruptcies are a result of medical costs and the majority of these folks had health insurance.

  • Every time an employee gets health inswurance as a benefit, they secretly/unknowingly surrender their right to purchase any and all necessary health care the insurer, for whatever reason, refuses coverage. As unconstitutional and actionable as it gets. See the new whistleblower's book "The Great Health Care Fraud" at Amazon or Barnes and Noble. It documents this careful and deliberate misleading of the American people (by insurers and state regulators) as well arming subscribers/employees with the knowledge they need to simply ignore the decisions of their insurer and obtain the coverage and care they need AS A MATTER OF LAW every single time! --- PLESAE note the book contains a written admission from Aetna! ---- The book also effectively guts the managed care business model by completely disclosing this indefensible and irrepairable fraud upon which the model has been built.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    No Free Passes: States With 2 Major Party Candidates in Every US House Race

    Indiana has now placed candidates from both major parties on the ballot in a nation-best 189 consecutive U.S. House races, with New Hampshire, Minnesota, Idaho, and Montana also north of 100 in a row.

    Political Crumbs

    Gubernatorial Highs and Lows

    Two sitting governors currently hold the record for the highest gubernatorial vote ever received in their respective states by a non-incumbent: Republican Matt Mead of Wyoming (65.7 percent in 2010) and outgoing GOPer Dave Heineman of Nebraska (73.4 percent in 2006). Republican Gary Herbert of Utah had not previously won a gubernatorial contest when he notched a state record 64.1 percent for his first victory in 2010, but was an incumbent at the time after ascending to the position in 2009 after the early departure of Jon Huntsman. Meanwhile, two sitting governors hold the record in their states for the lowest mark ever recorded by a winning gubernatorial candidate (incumbent or otherwise): independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (36.1 percent in 2010) and Democrat Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (47.8 percent in 2013).


    An Idaho Six Pack

    Two-term Idaho Republican Governor Butch Otter only polled at 39 percent in a recent PPP survey of the state's 2014 race - just four points ahead of Democratic businessman A.J. Balukoff. Otter's low numbers reflect his own struggles as a candidate (witness his weak primary win against State Senator Russ Fulcher) combined with the opportunity for disgruntled Idahoans to cast their votes for one of four third party and independent candidates, who collectively received the support of 12 percent of likely voters: Libertarian John Bujak, the Constitution Party's Steve Pankey, and independents Jill Humble and Pro-Life (aka Marvin Richardson). The six candidate options in a gubernatorial race sets an all-time record in the Gem State across the 46 elections conducted since statehood. The previous high water mark of five candidates was reached in seven previous cycles: 1902, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1914, 1966, and 2010.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting