Tom Daschle withdraws, and how that will impact health care reform

February 4, 2009

There’s no shortage of informed opinions on the Tom Daschle debacle, and how this will affect the chances of successful health care reform.

I don’t pretend to be a political pundit, so instead, here is a collection of selected insights from news sites and health policy blogs that I regularly read.

First off, the NY Times says it will likely halt the momentum for health reform, and “slow the president’s drive to reshape the nation’s health care system as the White House searches for a replacement, and it could allow Congress to step into the vacuum during that delay.”

Mr. Daschle was pegged for a dual role, running both Health and Human Services and the Office of Health Reform. The WSJ Health Blog writes that he had a “hard-to-find combination of qualifications, including deep ties in the Senate as well as some thoroughly articulated ideas about health reform.” There is a strong possibility that two people will be chosen to fill his shoes.

Health policy/progressive political blogger Ezra Klein points out that the consulting he provided to health insurers and speeches he gave to the pharmaceutical industry would have doomed him sooner or later. With the high ethical bar set by the Obama administration, “Daschle was doomed not by atypical corruption but by normal, even modest, conflicts of interest. But this time, in this administration, due to an odd confluence of circumstances, that was enough to scuttle his nomination.”

Fellow progressive blogger Merrill Goozner gets a case of deja vu, saying “the early stages of the Obama administration are beginning to resemble the Clinton years,” and that, “once again, a new Democratic president appears to have a semi-automatic weapon semi-permanently aimed at his foot.” He says Obama has a chance to atone for this mistake by appointing Joshua Sharfstein as FDA commissioner.

What does the ACP think of the situation? Look no further than their Washington lobbyist, Bob Doherty, who is not happy with the recent turn of events. “Daschle’s withdrawal puts a big bump in the road to health reform,” Mr. Doherty writes. “Daschle’s views on health care reform – in particular his support for primary care – provided a window into President Obama’s health reform priorities. Now, this window is closed.”

Every Washington insider is going to have issues with conflict of interest. Maggie Mahar explains that’s “why reform needs to be overseen by someone who is perceived as being above suspicion””purer than Caesar’s wife.” Does such a person exist? Is that a realistic expectation?

Finally, obstetrician-gynecologist blogger Amy Tuteur says that we should overlook Mr. Daschle’s tax troubles and conflicts of interest for the greater good of reforming the health care system. Progressives have “failed to see how, in American today, an error on one’s taxes cancel out a lifetime of public service and the promise for effective leadership on the healthcare issue. Indeed, now that Daschle has withdrawn . . . this incident has primarily benefited those who oppose comprehensive healthcare reform.”



Related posts:

  1. Will the government delay comprehensive health reform?
  2. How to get doctors to embrace health care reform
  3. Discussing health care reform at the National Press Club, Friday, July 17th at 9am
  4. How will the media influence health reform?
  5. Did Obama provide any health care clues in his inaugural address?
  6. Rationing care is inevitable to control health care costs
  7. The Obama health care summit, and did the President offer any clues to the upcoming health reform effort?


KevinMD.com on Facebook


  Follow on Twitter   Subscribe



{ 8 comments }

1 Anonymous February 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm

The bias drips from the screen. If Daschle were a Republican he would have been out faster than you could say “culture of corruption”.

Daschle blackballed high-quality Bush appointees for one hell of a lot less. Remember Miguel Estrada? No, I didn’t imagine you would.

And I don’t consider Daschle a high-quality anything. What expertise does he have in healthcare? I mean besides getting millions from the fat-cats.

2 Anonymous February 4, 2009 at 3:20 pm

The journalist, Amy Goodman, interviews Richard Kirsch, the national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, today on the news program Democracy Now! They discuss the impact of Daschle’s withdrawal from nomination.

see transcript or video at:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/4/with_daschles_withdrawal_from_health_sec

3 Anonymous February 4, 2009 at 3:32 pm

I am a solid democrat, and supporter of Obama, but Daschle’s an idiot. Good riddance.

Hopefully Sanjay Gupta will have somehtin in his closet too.

4 Anonymous February 4, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Does anyone remember “Throw the rascals out” during the Clinton administratio? Daschle was one of those rascals.

5 Dr. Mary Johnson February 4, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Kevin, the rules must apply to everyone.

Daschle lied to the IRS. I love how those ethical/transparent sorts who would minimize this are calling what he did just an “honest mistake” or an “oversight”.

It’s an oversight that kept money in his pocket and would have sent lesser beings to prison.

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2009/02/yeah-mr-president-you-did-screw-up.html

6 Anonymous February 4, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Oh, c’mon, taxes are for the little people.

We’re the philosopher-kings. We levy taxes, we don’t pay them.

What, you mean not everyone has a chauffeur-driven Cadillac?

7 Anonymous February 5, 2009 at 8:30 am

The idea that some super smart politician is going to save us is a very destructive one. It is what gives us Kings and dictators and Big Government.

Those guys are no smarter than your neighbor, and probably morally worse, given the corrupting power of power itself.

It doesn’t matter. One overinflated hypocrite who substitutes hubris for understanding will simply be replaced with another.

Ever notice how those congressmen go home and tell you how hard they fight to help the country, . . but they are just one little guy and can’t do much. Then when they are out of office, just their contacts alone are worth millions to those who can pay and want access to your tax pocket. It turns out that they, even without the office have lots of influence–they just used it for the particular good rather than the public good–the particular good of themselves and those who can pay.

Notice how even with all that valuable influence, a lifetime pension the envy of all and freedom that flows from that, and decades of proclaiming their compassion for “the little guy”, they devote their retirement years to fighting for “the big guy” who can pay.

The notion of using retirement to serve others is left to the “little people” who carry the community on their backs with their volunteer work.

8 Dr. Mary Johnson February 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Cadillacs are nice.

My mailman drives one.

I drive a Camry.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: Is depression more prevalent in medical students?

Next post: Do doctors who use social media prescribe more medications?

Site Meter