<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who Won the Health Care Summit Debate?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/03/01/who-won-the-health-care-summit-debate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/03/01/who-won-the-health-care-summit-debate/</link>
	<description>A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:45:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Dickinson</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/03/01/who-won-the-health-care-summit-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-13792</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Dickinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=7737#comment-13792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Orion - One can identify several areas that potentially serve as a meeting ground for Republicans and Democrats, including tort/malpractice reform.  I suggested a few others in my post: creating purchasing pools of the uninsured; allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines; and eliminating penalties for preexisting conditions.  Yes, some of these are relatively small potatoes cost-wise, but they are areas where compromise seems possible.  Ultimately, however, compromise necessitates giving up something.  For better or for worse (and my view is that it is for the worse) most members in both congressional parties apparently have concluded that it is in their best interest not to make any concessions at all.  What is troubling is Obama&#039;s apparent unwillingness to push Democrats to make these concessions.  I&#039;m not sure if this is because he doesn&#039;t think the Republicans will reciprocate, or that he simply lacks the political clout to persuade Democrats to reach out.  Whatever the reason, I saw little evidence at the health care summit that he saw compromise as a viable option.  And, given the current polarized state of the Congress, he may be right.  As of now, however, I don&#039;t think the Democrats have the votes to pass health care.  If this is the case, why not push harder for some type of compromise that might win over the moderate Democrats and perhaps even a Republican or two?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Orion &#8211; One can identify several areas that potentially serve as a meeting ground for Republicans and Democrats, including tort/malpractice reform.  I suggested a few others in my post: creating purchasing pools of the uninsured; allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines; and eliminating penalties for preexisting conditions.  Yes, some of these are relatively small potatoes cost-wise, but they are areas where compromise seems possible.  Ultimately, however, compromise necessitates giving up something.  For better or for worse (and my view is that it is for the worse) most members in both congressional parties apparently have concluded that it is in their best interest not to make any concessions at all.  What is troubling is Obama&#8217;s apparent unwillingness to push Democrats to make these concessions.  I&#8217;m not sure if this is because he doesn&#8217;t think the Republicans will reciprocate, or that he simply lacks the political clout to persuade Democrats to reach out.  Whatever the reason, I saw little evidence at the health care summit that he saw compromise as a viable option.  And, given the current polarized state of the Congress, he may be right.  As of now, however, I don&#8217;t think the Democrats have the votes to pass health care.  If this is the case, why not push harder for some type of compromise that might win over the moderate Democrats and perhaps even a Republican or two?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orion Lewis</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/03/01/who-won-the-health-care-summit-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-13790</link>
		<dc:creator>Orion Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=7737#comment-13790</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree that Democrats should have made more overtures to the other side. Isn&#039;t there something that they could have included that would have made it much more difficult for the GOP to vote against the legislation? Tort reform would only address 2% of health care costs, but it would have been good political strategy and likely pretty popular. I know the Dems are in the pocket of trial lawyers, but you would think that they would be more creative in at least attempting to capture some semblance of the middle ground.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that Democrats should have made more overtures to the other side. Isn&#8217;t there something that they could have included that would have made it much more difficult for the GOP to vote against the legislation? Tort reform would only address 2% of health care costs, but it would have been good political strategy and likely pretty popular. I know the Dems are in the pocket of trial lawyers, but you would think that they would be more creative in at least attempting to capture some semblance of the middle ground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
