Sec of Health and Human Services...

[GrayMatterWife]

apparently will be Tom Daschle.

I am surprised. I had no idea he was a real player in this area. Frankly, I thought HRC would be an appropriate pick. I mean, I don't agree with her (at least, the ideas she promoted back in the 90s), but she definitely holds a committed, demonstrated interest in health care.

Does anyone know why Daschle was the pick for this? Did he previously spearhead some legislation or something?

[Sheherezade]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

I've heard Daschle from the beginning. I'm not sure why. I'll check in to it. I wouldn't want Hillary there. Too much baggage - and animosity between her and Kennedy.

[MrsK]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

Per Wikipedia:

Newsweek's Howard Fineman indicated in an April 2007 article that Daschle has been playing a key role as a central adviser in Senator Obama's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination Although Obama lost the Democratic primary in South Dakota on June 3, 2008, Daschle's greater efforts came to fruition that evening as Obama secured his party's nomination. Two days later, sources indicated Daschle "has no interest in the vice presidency or in serving as chief of staff if Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is elected president," but "is interested in universal health care and might relish serving as HHS secretary."

Daschle was considered for White House Chief of Staff in Barack Obama's new administration; the post ultimately went to Rahm Emanuel.

On November 19, 2008, MSNBC announced that Daschle will be Obama's next Health and Human Services Secretary as well as the White House point person concerning all health policy. He will soon join the Obama Transition Team.

[MrsK]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

Daschle Warm To Obama Health Role
Thursday, June 5, 2008
by Erin McPike


Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota has no interest in the vice presidency or in serving as chief of staff if Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is elected president, but sources say he is interested in universal health care and might relish serving as HHS secretary.

Daschle, an early and ardent backer of Obama's bid for the White House and a key player in President Clinton's push for universal health care in 1993, told CongressDaily he hopes he "can be helpful, perhaps in a prospective Obama administration, on healthcare reform" and added that he would be "interested in finding ways to do that."

But he also said it was "so premature" to be thinking about possible roles and offered the standard diplomatically correct answer that he does not expect to be asked to run HHS.

When pressed, he said, "I've got some ideas that I think could be of help on this issue."

Daschle outlined some of those ideas in his little-noticed book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," which was published in February. In it he proposes a Federal Health Board to "create a public framework for a largely private health-care delivery system."

He also devotes a section of the book to "What Went Wrong And Models For Making It Right," with a heavy concentration on the Clinton plan. "I think it's important that we learn the lessons of the past," he said Wednesday.

Daschle is well aware of those lessons, having played a major part in the failed campaign for universal health care and learned many of the mistakes that were made from a Capitol Hill perspective.

In their book on the failed attempt, "The System: The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point," journalists David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote that Daschle was among a group of six Democratic senators who "battled to the end even when there was no hope."

That legislative battle put a number of Democrats in jeopardy of losing their seats; indeed, Republicans took control of the House and Senate in the 1994 elections. But the political environment might be different this time, with Democrats widely expected to build on their majorities in the House and Senate and with health care high on the list of priorities for many candidates.

In his book, Daschle said that while Clinton and then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "were eloquent in outlining the problem, they seemed to be far less successful when it came to promoting their plan for solving it. We had one of the best political communicators in history on our side, and yet we were far less effective than our opponents were in getting our message across."

Sen. Clinton, along with Daschle and many other present and former Democratic lawmakers and leaders, is in the mix for key roles in Obama's campaign, on the basis of the broad support her presidential campaign had in swing states. In recent days, she has been mentioned for such roles as vice presidential nominee and Supreme Court justice.

But her interest in playing a high-profile role in healthcare legislation, which she expressed Tuesday as Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president, has put HHS in play for her, too.

Clinton has not publicly stated the role she would like to play. But she has also not narrowed the field, as Daschle did last weekend on NBC's "Meet the Press." Daschle told moderator Tim Russert he had no interest in serving as vice president in an Obama administration. He also said he was not interested in serving as chief of staff, as former Rep. Leon Panetta of California did in the Clinton White House.

But Daschle wasn't so negative when Russert asked if would be interested in serving again in the federal government. "That's a possibility," he said.

Copyright ©2008 by National Journal Group I

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

Bet his "Critical" book is now #5 on the Amazon list. Getting the Obama nod is equivalent to being an Oprah reading selection!

Per the professional reviews of the book, Daschle apparently is advocating for the merging of private (through private employers) and public (Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal employees program) to create a system of universal coverage that is run by the feds and overseen by a board called the Federal Health Board. He wants to nationalize health care to save it. When, exactly, has nationalizing ANY service industry been good for it?

Awesome!! Government control is clearly the answer! Give up our ability to choose and subject everyone to the same system. Bring everyone down to the level of Government-subsidized and induced mediocrity while absolutely killing research incentives. But, thank goodness that the Government does such a bang-up job managing their own money and affairs! Just look at the example of...uh...err...TARP (the bailout)? Social Security? Oops, maybe not.

Geez. It's like people never learn.

[Sheherezade]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

I ordered the book. DH and I will both read it. I'm already half way through Rahm Emmanual's The Big Plan. I think Obama is running a book club. As for the Crisis book, FIL has read it. (He's a retired doc/prof who studies health care reform now. Oh - and an Obama-voting life long Republican.) I'll have to quiz him on it at Thanksgiving dinner.

Anyone else up for a read?

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

If the library has it I'll probably pick it up for the Thanksgiving drive, otherwise probably not.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

I won't be reading it. I will be reading books on how to shelter my income from taxation via Obamanomics.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

I completely forgot that he's on the board here - that could be interesting...

[ladymoreta]

Re: Sec of Health and Human Services...

There's a really interesting article on WSJ.com about Obama's health care plan and how much it will end up costing. It really is a scary thought. The article, The Obama Health Plan Emerges, is about how much we are currently spending on Medicare and Medicaid, and it puts some numbers to the new universal health care plan that are really quite scary. Here's the meat of the article:

Not that the current level of benefits will ever be paid. According to the Medicare trustees, the program's excess costs over the next 75 years -- that is, the difference between expected outlays and revenues -- is more than $36 trillion, which even they acknowledge is several trillion too low given current trends. Even if Congress doubled all individual and corporate tax rates, it still wouldn't raise enough revenue to pay for Medicare and Medicaid.

The Obama-Baucus solution to this slow-motion catastrophe is to add tens of millions more people to the federal balance sheet. Because the public option will enjoy taxpayer sponsorship, it will offer generous packages to consumers that no private company could ever afford or justify. And because federal officials will run not only the new plan but also the "market" in which it "competes" with private programs -- like playing both umpire and one of the teams on the field -- they will crowd out private alternatives and gradually assume a health-care monopoly.

"Even if Congress doubled all individual and corporate tax rates"... And he wants to fund it by only raising taxes on people making over $250,000??? Either they're going to be taxed into poverty territory, or everyone is about to get a big surprise when tax time comes around.