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

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    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