Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Q&A WITH THE SECRETARY.
Health wonks will delight in the 137 page document compiling the Senate Finance Committee's questions to Kathleen Sebelius and her answers. A couple highlights that caught my eye. First, on the individual mandate:
Do you support an individual or employer mandate to purchase health coverage as part of health care reform, and if so, how would you believe such a mandate should be enforced?
As noted in my answer to the previous question, the President‘s campaign plan emphasized shared responsibility, including the responsibility of employers and individuals. The health care system cannot be reformed without each participant‘s contribution to change. We are committed to working with the American public and with Congress on how to specify policies and balance priorities.
Whatever that answer is, it's not a "no." Another interesting moment came when Sebelius was asked about the employer tax exclusion. Watch this skillful bit of diplomacy:
The President believes health reform should build upon the existing employer-based health care system, through which the majority of Americans receive their health care. The tax exclusion contributes to sustaining this system. That said, he recognizes that many members of Congress have views on that subject. He has stated that he would consider this among other sources of financing if that is what it takes to cover all Americans.
And then, of course, there's the exected public plan question:
We believe in the principle of choice and ensuring the private market works.
The President wants to make health care affordable for families and businesses. We want to give Americans a choice of which health insurance option works for them. While the President discussed proposals to ensure that Americans had benefits as good as Members of Congress, his campaign plan also proposed a public option alongside private insurance options in a National Health Insurance Exchange. He recognizes the importance of giving the American people this choice, which will also challenge private insurers to compete on cost and quality, not cream-skimming and risk selection. At the same time, he recognizes the importance of a level playing field between plans and ensuring that private insurance plans are not disadvantaged. The President is open to good ideas from both sides of the aisle, and he will work with Congress on this and other elements of the plan.
You can download the whole exchange here. Let me know if you catch anything interesting that I missed.
COMMENTS (4)
the two most interesting things so far have been;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/sebelius_hhs
President Barack Obama's health secretary nominee got nearly three times as much political money from a controversial abortion doctor as she told senators.
The Health and Human Services Department said Monday that the omission was an oversight that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius would correct.
In a response to questions from the Senate Finance Committee made public last week, Sebelius wrote that she received $12,450 between 1994-2001 from Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.
But in addition to those campaign donations, records reviewed by The Associated Press show that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000-2002 to a political action committee Sebelius established while insurance commissioner to raise money for fellow Democrats.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-sebelius_wedapr01,0,5257116.story
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, the president's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, did not pay $7,040 in income taxes that she and her husband owed between 2005 and 2007, the White House disclosed Tuesday in another tax-related embarrassment for the Obama administration.
She'll fit right in with all the other crooks and liars Obama has brought to Washington.
Posted by: Nate | April 14, 2009 11:48 AM
Whatever that answer is, it's not a "no."
It's also not a "yes". It's a typical confirmation committee non-answer. Yeah, she's pretty good at being evasive, but I don't see that as much of a strength.
On the other hand, Nate is wrong. Neither of the two issues he raises are even slightly interesting.
Posted by: Rob Mac | April 14, 2009 12:13 PM
This is the most interesting to me:
I agree that we need to improve quality across our public – and private – insurance programs. Our health care providers are the best in the world, but operate in a flawed and fragmented system. Ending gaps in coverage, expanding health information, integrating quality measures into payment systems, and advancing research on what works will improve the health system‘s performance. Leadership to prioritize quality of care comes from the President, who emphasized this during the campaign and reiterated it in his budget. If confirmed, I will work with the White House Office of Health Reform and other departments to promote patient safety and support our providers‘ efforts to improve quality.
That's the first I've heard of any interest in increasing quality in private plans, unless she's just referring to comparative effectiveness.
Posted by: ThomasEn | April 14, 2009 2:04 PM
I would sure like to know when the administration is going to stop making nicey-nice and talking around every difficult issue. It's not that I'm anxious to watch the fireworks. I just know we won't get any progress on a health care plan with this kind of yes-and-no babble.
Posted by: Adagio | April 14, 2009 2:06 PM