ACES low...

Obama stays on message ... health care, health care, health care 5

The White House billed Wednesday night’s primetime press conference as being about health care reform. And sure enough, President Obama and the press by and large stuck to that script.

The president made a passing mention of renewable energy in his opening remarks, saying the U.S. economy “simply wasn’t ready to compete in the 21st century, one where we’ve been slow to invest in clean-energy technologies that have created new jobs and industries in other countries.”

After that, all health care, with a smattering of the Prof. Gates arrest at the end. The media did not ask a single question about climate change and renewable energy. No reference was made to the massive cap-and-trade bill passed last month by the House or the Senate’s work to come up with its own bill.

Politics is about timing. I get that. And until the Senate begins debating an actual proposal, there’s not much the White House can (or should) do to urge action. But a very important clock is ticking: Passage of a climate and energy bill is seen as a precondition for an international deal to be reached at Copenhagen late this year.

Health care continues to dog the push for a comprehensive climate and energy bill. So here are some questions for Grist readers:

Does the president risk losing momentum for climate action by turning his attention to health care?

Or is the health care focus a sign of confidence—that the White House believes a Waxman-Markey-like bill is a done deal?

Should we get over ourselves and concede that health care takes priority over climate action?

Are both issues “doable” this year?

I think I can guess what Grist’s David Roberts would say: Obama is laying the groundwork for a major makeover of the U.S. economy, and focusing just on energy or just on health care would fall short of getting our country ready to compete in the 21st century.  David will be back tomorrow, so we’ll see if he takes that view or not.

For now, get the conversation going in the comments below.

Russ Walker is an East Coast refugee who landed in Seattle in July 2008. He’s executive editor of the site, which means he spends a lot of time trying to be optimistic about cutting CO2 emissions … and coming up with puns that work with “COP-15.”

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Chris McMasters's avatar

    Chris McMasters Posted 1:07 am
    23 Jul 2009

    President Obama inherited a plethora of extensive problems: the environment, energy, health care, economy, illegal Bush policies, wars, puppy choice, education, etc. These issues require immediate political attention and leadership. I commend him for aggressively dealing with all - ahem - many of them.What is important to note (and equally frustrating) is the inability of our congress to make meaningful policies quickly. Except when it comes to agreeing to blow things up, we continue to see examples of petty politics and watered down compromises slowly meandering along like a drunk tortoise - hiccup.To answer your questions, no, Obama does not risk losing momentum on energy - no more than he would lose momentum on health care if we were dealing with energy. It is what it is. Congress clearly does not multi-task well.A Waxman-Markey-like bill is hardly a done deal. I don't think the White House thinks that it is. I do think that whatever happens with health care will also happen with climate legislation. H(w)e'll get either two wins or two losses.As health care and climate are related, I don't see how we can prioritize one over the other. As I said, congress does not multi-task well. The missing piece, however, is with regard to food. Our food system is largely an environmental and health debacle. Correcting this unsustainable system would be a great way to prevent future problems associated with these issues (see WALL-E).Both issues are doable. Be active. Call your senators and representatives. It's hard to imagine we'll get a second chance at either of these with our existing circumstances.

    Permalink

  2. Eden Y Posted 2:16 am
    23 Jul 2009

    Focusing the political debate and the
    health-care debate about the overuse and sometimes the ‘abuse’ of emergency
    departments by the poor and the uninsured is really missing the point. Most aid
    does not actually go to the poorest that would need it the most; this has been
    a common criticism, for many years. Poorest have less voice in public and
    political debates, making it even harder to escape poverty. However, there are classes of people – there are haves, and have nots. The gap
    between the rich and the poor is ostensibly wide, and some people advocate a
    particular solution – have rich people only date poor people.

    Permalink

  3. bailsout Posted 3:38 pm
    23 Jul 2009

    Does the new health care plan mean more people living longer? If so, it's counter productive. More people is more carbon emissions and more global devastation. How about a new health care program that is so bad more people start dying off sooner?

    Permalink

  4. splashy's avatar

    splashy Posted 12:36 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    I think that universal health care, if it can be achieved with the plans being put forth now (still debatable), would actually lead to better work on the climate issues. That's because more people with good ideas will feel free to strike out on their own, starting innovative new businesses without the fear of losing their health care and the burden of providing health care for their employees. A percentage of those businesses will be in the field of alternative energy and other things related to mitigating climate change.Freeing up the potential of people here in the US is paramount. With or without the government sponsoring them, the creativity and innovative work of people are what will make it happen.

    Permalink

  5. REwonk Posted 1:59 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    Both are important priorities, but the climate bill has a firm deadline to it: if we don't have something in place by December, it will be tough to get anywhere with the negotiations in Copenhagen. I worry when I hear the Senate targeting December for the bill, when they should probably be targeting October.It is true that while the committees slog away at the bill, there's not much that could be done to speed it up, but there are some committees that are involved in both bills, and it's troubling if they tackle health care reform first. What good does health care reform do if the world goes to hell and our economy collapses?I think they're taking on too much right now. I wish they would keep a laser-sharp focus on the climate.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement