What is Dodd hiding?

With the passing of Sen. Kennedy this week and all the other important stories that surfaced during what was supposed to be a ‘light’ news week ($2 trillion increase in the deficit projection, Bernanke’s reappointment, Holder’s CIA investigation, etc.), this article from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal titled “Health Care Secrets” is not likely to attract much media attention. But, this article brings to light a suspicious situation – namely, why is Sen. Dodd hiding the health care bill passed by the HELP (Health, Education, Labor & Pension) Committee that he oversaw in Sen. Kennedy’s absence?

The article explains:

“On July 15, six weeks ago, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed an amended $1 trillion health-care bill, with acting Chairman Chris Dodd calling it a “historic achievement.” Too bad the committee won’t reveal this history even to other Senators, much less to the public.Three weeks ago Republicans on the committee wrote Mr. Dodd “to reiterate our request for a full copy of the bill as amended, in the four-week mark-up.” Mr. Dodd has refused to comply. The Senate bill that is available on the committee Web site is 790 pages long. While that is some 300 pages shorter than the House health bill, that’s in part because it doesn’t include nearly 200 amendments that passed when the committee redrafted the bill. Amended sections of the bill might as well be written in invisible ink.

We called Mr. Dodd’s committee office last week to ask why the bill isn’t posted, and a spokesman explained that it is still being “worked on.” Will it be ready by October? “Don’t count on it,” the staffer said.”

You might think, doesn’t this violate some kind of public information or access law for a Senator to do this? The answer is no. When Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act, they cleverly wrote themselves out of the bill, exempting themselves from the requirement to disclose. Second, if the bill that came out of HELP is indeed a ‘historic achievement’ as Dodd has lauded, that’s all the more reason to release the bill, isn’t it? With the Obama administration hitting Americans’ anti-government nerves as Steve Chapman put it, who wouldn’t want to be the one to unveil a health care plan of such magnitude, and be seen as the compromiser, the negotiator in chief that united the two sides on this debate? Right?

Seems like something fishy is going on here. I’d imagine Dodd would be all too happy to wrap himself in the mantle of bipartisanship and to be seen as carrying on the torch for the late Sen. Kennedy. So, what’s really going on? What reasons would Dodd have for not releasing the bill? Having witnessed how heated debates over health care have been all across the country, could it be that he’s scared to unveil this ‘historic’ legislation?

Let’s look at what we do know about the bill. Has it dropped the public option? It doesn’t look like it. On July 7, as his committee was beginning to parse the bill, Dodd said that the bill must include a public option. But, then again, he also said that “only through an open and collaborative process [can] we succeed.” All signs point to him staying faithful to the first point, not so much to the latter.

Does the bill impose fines, thereby penalizing individuals who choose to opt out of the public option? This is another topic that has added fuel to the health care debate. Once again, Dodd has stuck to the liberal course, assessing “shared responsibility payments” (what a lovely way to say punishment) on those who choose not to purchase health insurance.

Does the bill similarly penalize employers who aren’t able to provide insurance to employees? You guessed right – it sure does.

Does it give us more information on how health care costs will be reigned in? Or on how costs will be controlled? Not yet; it leaves this to the Senate Finance Committee which is still grappling with the issue.

Ok, ok, well what about purchasing insurance across state lines? Surely it makes some progress on that issue? No, I couldn’t find any mention of this approach or any of the other approaches conservatives have suggested in the way of reforms in the summary of the bill. So much for bipartisanship.

Finally, what about public funding of abortions? That must have been taken out of the bill, right? On the contrary, Sen. Dodd has no problem with public funds going toward abortions; after all, he is all for choice - just not when it comes to you picking your own insurance or your own doctor. When Sen. Hatch offered an amendment prohibiting federal funds from going toward abortion, it was rejected.

The bill passed through committee 13-10, with all 10 Republicans voting against the bill.

“A good bill that is bipartisan obviously has a chance of not only succeeding but also being sustained, so there’s a value in achieving that bipartisanship.”But not at the expense of a good bill. “I will not sacrifice a good bill for that. That’s not the goal here,” Dodd said.”

Finally, we have some honesty. Dodd is all for an “open and collaborative process”, but he refuses to release the actual wording of the bill. He is for individual choices, just not for you to make your own decisions about your health care in an open, transparent market. And, he is all for bipartisanship, as long as it’s the other side making all the concessions.

If the left still hasn’t realized that Americans have their eye on Washington and that now is not the time to be sneaky, they deserve to lose this battle. As a health care opponent myself, I say, as you were Sen. Dodd.

*Originally published August 30, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

Tags: Government Transparency, health care debate