Breaking News

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has been holding biweekly meetings to help build a consensus solution on health care that follows the road map laid out by President Barack Obama

As part of the $3.5 trillion budget he proposed on Thursday, President Barack Obama is pushing for a down payment on universal health care, a reserve fund of $634 billion over 10 years paid for by higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans and savings from government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

By putting the funding on the table before the program has even been crafted, though, Obama is essentially putting the cart before the horse. Many health-care analysts hope to see more details of the President’s plan during a White House health-care summit expected at the end of next week — but they may be looking toward the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Unlike the failed 1994 Clinton health-care-reform effort, this isn’t going to be a bill that the Executive Branch drafts in isolation and then tries to ram down the throats of Congress.

Instead, Congress — particularly a working group convened by longtime health-care-reform advocate Senator Edward M. Kennedy — is working on a consensus solution following the road map laid out by Obama.

In fact, since the middle of last fall, Kennedy’s group has held biweekly meetings that feel somewhat like a college class — albeit the most advanced seminar on health policy on the planet. There’s a curriculum for each of the two-hour sessions; topics have ranged from benefits packages and employer mandates to tax treatment of health insurance, payment reform and prevention and wellness.

Although they are about halfway through the agenda, participants say progress has already been made. The group agrees on broad principles like a focus on prevention, a commitment to cutting costs and universal coverage approached through the expansion of employer plans. But the group — so far on the friendliest of terms — has disagreed on whether coverage should be mandated or simply offered to all individuals, how much money is needed and what the proper role of government plans should be in the private system. And they haven’t even gotten to some of the tougher parts yet, like how to make cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

Taking part in these meetings, as was reported last week in the New York Times, are a diverse group of stakeholders: AARP, the insurer Aetna, the AFL-CIO, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association (AMA), America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Business Roundtable, Easter Seals, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Most participants declined to comment directly on the talks, saying they were sworn to secrecy by Kennedy and risked expulsion from the meetings by talking on the record — though a few were willing to speak anonymously about some of the progress that has been made. Most were eager to praise the new momentum Obama has breathed into the talks this week, including the breakout session on health in his fiscal-responsibility summit on Monday, the underlining of his commitment to health-care reform in his address to the joint session of Congress on Tuesday and in his budget announcement on Thursday, and his announcement of a health-care summit for next week.

“This is a frank and respectful discussion that essentially began in earnest on Monday,” says Dr. Nancy Nielsen, president of the AMA. “What we’re hearing from him is that there is an urgent need for health-care reform and that we also want to make sure that we get it right when we do those reforms.”

Senator Chris Dodd, who often sits in on the meetings in case Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, can’t participate, has said he expects to see legislation introduced by Memorial Day. Kennedy monitors the progress by telephone from home. Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, who has called health-care reform his top priority this year and is working hand-in-hand with Kennedy — Baucus’ staff has often been in the room when stimulus negotiations allowed them the time — has said that he expects to hold hearings in the spring.

By all accounts, the bill will go through the usual committee process in an effort to draw as much bipartisan support as possible. Democrats control the Senate with 58 votes — two votes short of preventing a Republican filibuster, so at least some GOP support must be drawn. There has been concern among the stakeholders that the Republicans have not been in any of the meetings thus far; one person involved in the talks said they have been invited but have declined to attend, though several participants have said they keep GOP colleagues abreast of progress.

“We would hope that any process that goes forward will actually include Republicans and Democrats to get support not only of both parties but of the American people,” says Dan Smith, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

The House, meanwhile, has been waiting for guidance from the Administration before it gets the legislative ball rolling — guidance that could come as early as next week at the anticipated White House summit.

Obama is still struggling to put his team in place after the loss of Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader who withdrew his name from consideration to become Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administration’s health-care czar after revelations of his failure to pay $128,000 in taxes.

At least three experts involved in the talks say the House is so far behind, they will have to run to catch up to the Senate. The Senate’s progress is largely due to Kennedy’s “incredible ability and strength,” says Billy Tauzin, CEO and president of PhRMA, and a former Congressman from Louisiana. “He’s anxious to make this a great legacy.”

The sticking points within the group are no surprise to the health-care community. “You don’t need to know what’s going on in the secret meetings to know the two biggest challenges are the individual mandate and costs,” says Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat who sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, which is convening the meetings. Obama’s budget also draws some battle lines on these issues: the White House, for instance, doesn’t support an individual mandate as Kennedy and Baucus do.

Then there’s the question of whether the program can really be shoehorned into the $634 billion 10-year budget figure that Obama has proposed; some have estimated that it would take at minimum $1 trillion over 10 years. And while everyone in the room has marveled at how congenial the discussions have been, the hardest part is yet to come. “Whenever there’s change, there will be a winner and loser,” says one meeting participant. “It will be not easy.”

(CNN) — Tracy Dupire of Worthington, Indiana, loves to drive her 2002 Ford Mustang convertible with the top down when the weather is nice. She’s always had an American car and hopes she always will.3

“It’s hard to rationalize sending all of our money overseas. You have to buy American products and back American workers,” says Dupire.

The question of value in American-based auto-manufacturers is coming to a head as President Obama advocates for a bailout of two of the Big Three auto manufacturers and asks the companies to present a plan for progress.

General Motors and Chrysler requested a combined $21.6 billion Tuesday on top of existing federal loans due to worsening demand for cars and trucks. Ford said it has enough money for the time being to make due without the bailout.  Dupire wants to see the American-based auto manufacturers supported with conditions and close supervision.

“I think they should be held accountable for every dime we give them. I don’t think we should give our money away without getting something back from it. It’s not enough to say, ‘Oh we’re going to fix it.’ We need to have a plan.”

Auto manufacturers waited too long to make changes and are paying the price for imprudent extravagance, Dupire says. “It’s just a slap in the face to America. I have to get by on a budget, why shouldn’t they have to?”

But Dupire says American car makers still produce a good product. As long as owners attend to their scheduled maintenance, they’re going to have a good car that lasts, she says.

Kelly R. Verhelst of Oostburg, Wisconsin, says her family always buys American cars and she feels doing so helps her country.

“I don’t always agree with the big labor unions and management styles but there is just something about American pride. Our country has been bombarded with foreign-made products from clothing to electronics.”

Daniel Luke Diaz of Diamond Bar, California, has only bought American cars his entire life — he even drove a Hummer during his time in the military. He says, for the most part, American cars provide good value.

He also says he feels a responsibility to buy American.

By buying foreign cars, “You might as well be laying off the American autoworkers yourself and handing their paychecks to those foreign automakers personally,” says Diaz.

The American auto industry can be turned around if top executives renew their focus on quality construction and better materials, says Diaz.

“I believe Americans want cars to be as durable as they were 20 years ago. No cutting corners.”

He says foreign automakers have used a “quantity-over-quality strategy” that flooded markets and made the cars seem more reliable. Marketing is a huge part of the solution for turning around the auto companies, he says.

“American consumers simply want to know the American cars on the road will last, will have a long-term warranty, and that parts will be readily available and labeled ‘Made in the USA.’ “

Dan Gray of Belle Mead, New Jersey, an MPGomatic.com car reviewer, posted a video on iReport.com describing his own impressions of American cars. He says many perform as well as any imports and there are several models he highly recommends.

“We need to keep our factories going and our people employed. Give the American car companies a shot.”

But Nicholas Coday of Eugene, Oregon, says he finds cars from the so-called Big Three to be inferior to imports. He views the bailout plans as a “necessary evil” since the auto industry is so large and employs so many people.

“I think the autoworkers are being hurt in the end as they are given a false sense of security by the bailout and the [auto workers] union. It does not matter how much money we pump into the company if consumers cannot afford their vehicles or would rather buy vehicles from their competitors.”

Coday says the Ford and Chevy models he has owned developed serious mechanical problems, while the Hondas he later bought had only minor “cosmetic” issues.

He singled out Ford as the only company of the Big Three he feels “has a clue” and coincidentally isn’t asking for the bailout money.

“They have realized that not everyone wants an SUV or a truck and they cannot afford the cost of a Mustang, so they have rolled out affordable models such as the Focus and Fusion, which I have seen good reviews on.”

Another “unsatisfied” American car owner is Concordia University student Suraj Suba of Montreal, Quebec. He likes his Chrysler Intrepid but says styling and fuel efficiency could be better.

“The way I see it, they [should] have a lot of power. You [should] feel like you’re driving a manly car when you’re driving an American car. It doesn’t feel flimsy, and it doesn’t feel like it’s going to break.”   He views Ford’s own strides in these areas as reasons why the company hasn’t yet asked for federal money.

“The whole American-made, Ford-tough. … That’s what’s lacking at GM and Chrysler. It doesn’t have that pride.”