With friends like liberal Democrats...
Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington is a prime reason President Obama will have a hard time getting health care reform passed this year. Let me explain this seeming oddity.
At a news conference Wednesday (May 27) in Yakima, the liberal Cantwell, who represents a state that voted 58 percent for Obama, announced her support for two new, bipartisan bills that would advance a key goal of Obama’s reforms — increasing access to primary care physicians and other doctors who are in short supply. As Massachusetts has discovered, making sure nearly everyone has health insurance doesn’t help if there aren’t enough doctors to take care of them.
The two bills Cantwell endorsed feature provisions that would cost the federal government billions of dollars a year — scholarships and loan forgiveness for medical students who serve in shortage areas, increased funding for the National Health Service Corps, higher Medicare payments to primary care doctors, more Medicare funding for resident physician training, interest-free loans for hospitals starting new residency training programs, etc.
All these sound like good ideas. The U.S. is experiencing a growing shortage of family physicians, general internists, and pediatricians. That’s largely because primary care doctors earn much less money than specialists, and most medical students are opting for higher-paying specialties. The shortage of primary care doctors leads to patients seeking care in an unorganized way from more expensive specialist physicians, which costs the nation more money and results in poorer quality care. We clearly need to encourage more young doctors to go into primary care.
President Obama has been frank that this and other parts of his health reform plan are going to cost a lot of money, probably more than $100 billion a year. That’s why he asked Congress in his budget proposal to set aside a “down payment” of $634 billion over 10 years to help pay for the new system in which all Americans have access to affordable health care. He proposed to raise $318 billion for that purpose by capping itemized tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year.
That's where he lost Sen. Cantwell, who made a small fortune in the technology business. On top of opposing Obama’s funding proposal, she and eight other Democratic senators recently supported a Republican-sponsored Senate proposal, opposed by the Obama administration, to reduce the estate tax for very wealthy Americans. That bill, if passed, would cost the U.S. Treasury $100 billion — money Obama badly needs for health care reform.
During her news conference, I asked Cantwell how she would pay for her expensive bills to boost the supply of primary care doctors, given that she has opposed two of President Obama’s tax proposals. She dodged, insisting that training more primary care doctors would lead to better, less expensive care that would save the nation $55 billion. Thus, she contended, the new programs would pay for themselves. Actually, even experts who support better primary care aren’t sure more and better primary care would reduce health care spending, or by how much; some say it could increase costs.
Cantwell also argued that the nation could save a lot by reducing levels of care in high-cost states like Florida to the levels in lower-cost states like Washington. That’s true, of course — except that the smartest medical brains around the country haven’t figured out how to do that.
After the news conference, I pressed Cantwell further on the funding issue, asking her how her projected savings would pay for the steep upfront costs of her proposals. She gave another non-answer, saying the challenge is to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs downward over the long term. I then asked her to explain how she would prefer to pay for health care reform since she opposes Obama’s approach. She again insisted that her proposals would pay for themselves.
In the 1990s, President Clinton’s universal health care plan was killed as much by opposition from anti-tax congressional Democrats as by Republicans and health industry groups. Watching Cantwell will tell us whether that is going to happen again.










Comments:
Posted Fri, May 29, 9:07 a.m. inappropriate
Cantwell's response is classic politician cowardice: never make the constituency face hard choices, let them lead you and never lead them.
In this scenario it'll be up to the voters to get the message to Cantwell that they are willing to pay for healthcare with fair taxes. Evidently the overwhelming support for Obama in the election wasn't a clear enough message for the Senator and she feels too timid to take a principled stand. (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and pretend that she actually would prefer to take such a stand.)
Posted Fri, May 29, 9:09 a.m. inappropriate
If the Obama administration wants to increase the number of general practitioners, one very constructive solution would be to limit the profitability of opportunistic malpractice suits. A doctor operating in good faith should not face financial ruin at the whim of a self-styled "victim" of his care. Of course, the possibility that Obama would do anything to offend his very prosperous and powerful supporters in the ambulance-chaser class is vanishingly small. Why aren't reporters questioning White House officials about this issue with tenacity equal to that demonstrated by reporter Meyer in questioning the entrepreneurial class?
Posted Fri, May 29, 1:19 p.m. inappropriate
Here's a comment sent from Elton Kerr, MD FACOG:
Great observations. Cantwell illustrates the concept I have often stated that one' s individual background, economic and cultural, often leads to divergent goals and thoughts on how to improve any broken system. Cantwell, obviously would not be in-favor of markedly higher taxes on the super wealthy and estate taxes that do not let her pass her fortune on to her kids based on her individual background.
Another point about the regional variances in the level of health care. It is not just Florida vs. Washington. I think the fractured system is illustrated just between Yakima Co and adjacent Benton Co. Yakima Co (including the lower valley) has better primary care coverage than Tricities! I am finding patients who come to me often do not have a primary, but are visiting 5 or 6 specialist and consequently are on 20-25 medications, some of which are duplicative. I doubt any one doc is trying to look at the big picture. I now have 2 cases where patients have come in with new symptoms and when I take a through history find that the symptoms began when a certain new medication was started 3-4 months prior. I have shown patients from the PDR (physicians desk reference) that the new symptom they have is listed as a major side effect of the newest added medication, or that their symptom is clearly stated as an interaction between 2 or more of the medications that they are currently taking. While most docs are very hesitant to tell a patient to stop a medication started by another doc, I have in the short time I have been here "cured" 2 patients in their late 50's of medical symptoms, by having them temporarily discontinue medications they were already on.
When a community has lots of patients having poly-pharmacy issues, it is indicative of a lack of primary care docs.
Elton Kerr MD FACOG
Posted Fri, May 29, 4:13 p.m. inappropriate
From Dr. Kerr above
"Cantwell, obviously would not be in-favor of markedly higher taxes on the super wealthy and estate taxes that do not let her pass her fortune on to her kids based on her individual background."
Cantwell has kids to pass her wealth on to? Really? Who are they?
Posted Sat, May 30, 8:31 a.m. inappropriate
Mr. Brewster I would expect more from you than to post such an inaccurate piece from Dr. Kerr as I have mentioned above, his assertion that Sen. Cantwell is against higher taxes on the super wealthy and estate taxes that do not let her pass her fortune on to her kids on her indivudal background." On that faulty foundation (factually incorrect)his arguement is laid. Senator Cantwell is single and without chldren. I am no fan of the Senator but please endevor to post facts.
Posted Wed, Jun 3, 1:07 p.m. inappropriate
Here's a submission to the editor, from Chuck Richards of Seattle:
Thank you so much for your article I read in Crosscut.com on Sen. Cantwell trying to evade any direct conversation on health care reform.
We on the ‘Wet Side’ are having the same difficulty. We have phoned several times asking for an appointment with a staff person in her office, Nate Caminos, and have be put into the voice message loop. Nothing. Our goal is to ask about Single-Payer as a measure worth hearing from in Senate Comm. testimony, and being worth comparing side by side with any other plan.
Then, last week, our president of the Puget Sound Alliance of Retired Americans, Maureen Bo, wrote a personal letter which she had me hand deliver to the Seattle office. Nothing. A certified letter is going out this afternoon, and several of us are likely to ‘Stand In’ her office soon if we hear nothing this week. Then we will have to increase our numbers, I suppose.
--Chuck Richards