President’s Comments on Health Care and the Elections
In case you missed it, I’ve clipped two separate exchanges – one with Mike Emanuel of Fox News, the second with Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal – from the President’s afternoon news conference regarding the substance of the health care law, the process under which it was enacted, and the voters’ verdict on same. In response to the President’s repeated assertions that the country needed to reduce health care costs, it’s worth pointing out that the Medicare actuary concluded that the law will increase national health care spending by more than $300 billion in its first ten years alone. Regarding the President’s assertion that “one in two voters think [passing the health care bill] was the right thing to do,” this series of clips from candidate Obama on the campaign trail, where he criticized the pattern of “fifty [percent] plus one” politics, because he said such victories mean “you can’t govern.” Finally, enterprising readers analyzing the President’s assertion that we should not “for the next two years re-litigate arguments that we had over the last two years” may wish to consider – or attempt to tally – the number of times the very same President has criticized the economic record and actions of his predecessor, who left office nearly two years ago.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Health care — as you’re well aware, obviously, a lot of Republicans ran against your health care law. Some have called for repealing the law. I’m wondering, sir, if you believe that health care reform that you worked so hard on is in danger at this point, and whether there’s a threat, as a result of this election.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I know that there’s some Republican candidates who won last night who feel very strongly about it. I’m sure that this will be an issue that comes up in discussions with the Republican leadership. As I said before, though, I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments that we had over the last two years.
With respect to the health care law, generally — and this may go to some of the questions that Savannah was raising — you know, when I talk to a woman from New Hampshire who doesn’t have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment but now is able to get health insurance, when I talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a preexisting condition can now stay on their policy until they’re 26 years old and give them time to transition to find a job that will give them health insurance, or the small businesses that are now taking advantage of the tax credits that are provided — then I say to myself, this was the right thing to do.
Now, if the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster and more effective reform to a health care system that has been wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, I’m happy to consider some of those ideas.
You know, for example, I know one of the things that’s come up is that the 1099 provision in the health care bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses. It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. It’s probably counterproductive. It was designed to make sure that revenue was raised to help pay for some of the other provisions, but if it ends up just being so much trouble that small businesses find it difficult to manage, that’s something that we should take a look at.
So there are going to be examples where I think we can tweak and make improvements on the progress that we’ve made. That’s true for any significant piece of legislation.
But I don’t think that if you ask the American people, should we stop trying to close the doughnut hole that will help senior citizens get prescription drugs, should we go back to a situation where people with preexisting conditions can’t get health insurance, should we allow insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick even though you’ve been paying premiums — I don’t think that you’d have a strong vote for people saying those are provisions I want to eliminate.
Q According to some exit polls, sir, about one out of two voters apparently said that they would like to either see it overturned or repealed. Are you concerned that that may embolden voters who are from the other party perhaps?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it also means one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do. And obviously this is an issue that has been contentious. But as I said, I think what’s going to be useful is for us to go through the issues that Republicans have issues on — not sort of talking generally, but let’s talk specifics. Does this particular provision — when it comes to preexisting conditions, is this something you’re for or you’re against? Helping seniors get their prescription drugs — does that make sense or not?
And if we take that approach — which is different from campaigning — I mean, this is now governing — then I think that we can continue to make some progress and find some common ground….
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said earlier that it was clear that Congress was rejecting the idea of a cap-and-trade program, and that you wouldn’t be able to move forward with that. Looking ahead, do you feel the same way about EPA regulating carbon emissions? Would you be open to them doing essentially the same thing through an administrative action, or is that off the table, as well?
And secondly, just to follow up on what you said about changing the way Washington works, do you think that — you said you didn’t do enough to change the way things were handled in this city. Some of — in order to get your health care bill passed you needed to make some of those deals. Do you wish, in retrospect, you had not made those deals even if it meant the collapse of the program?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that making sure that families had security and were on a trajectory to lower health care costs was absolutely critical for this country. But you are absolutely right that when you are navigating through a House and a Senate in this kind of pretty partisan environment that it’s a ugly mess when it comes to process. And I think that is something that really affected how people viewed the outcome. That is something that I regret — that we couldn’t have made the process more — healthier than it ended up being. But I think the outcome was a good one.