Cusp of victory or death throes? Bloggers on the right and left have very different interpretations of the health reform debate this week.
Critical Condition’s Jeffrey Anderson looks at President Barack Obama’s speeches from this week and says: “The president would like you to believe that he’s riding a wave of newfound momentum. But where would this wave have come from? From his long-winded and widely panned performance at the ‘health summit’? … From polls showing that 81 percent of Americans think Obamacare would cost even more than projected, while only 17 percent think it would lower health costs?”
But The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein thinks public opinion paints a different picture. He posts a chart from the latest Gallup poll and says, “In case you think it’s an outlier, here’s Pollster.com’s trend line on health-care reform. Last night, Stephen Colbert asked me if ‘everybody’ hates health-care reform. The answer is no. The country is closely divided on health-care reform, with a slight plurality in opposition. Moreover, health-care reform is actually getting a bit more popular as it nears passage. Presumably, that’s because people are hearing more about the bill and less about why the bill is failing.”
The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward describes the mood on Capitol Hill Tuesday: “There was churn and noise on Capitol Hill Tuesday, but no discernible progress toward resolution of the health-care fight, as uncertainty prevailed in Washington. … The conventional wisdom is that Pelosi will somehow find a way to pass a bill, despite a staggering set of political and procedural challenges. The complexity and intractability of those challenges is what has much of the city’s political class uncertain if Pelosi can pull it off.”
But The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn bemoans the procedural bickering over such challenges: “Pointing out the hypocrisy of Republican positions on procedural fairness is getting tiresome, I know. …. (But) let me get this straight: If Republicans want to introduce an endless stream of amendments simply to prevent a majority of Senators from passing some amendments to health care reform, that’s fine. But if Democrats ask the presiding chair to rule the amendments dilatory, thus ending the debate, that’s a violation of protocol and a breach of good faith?”
Heritage’s Kathryn Nix looks at a new proposal in the House that seeks to change the way the Office of Personnel Management negotiates prescription drug prices for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. According to Nix, the new bill is an example of what could occur under new federal health legislation: “Given the policies embodied in H.R.4489, the FEHBP would be saddled with a new layer of government regulation, an ominous harbinger for the avalanche of federal rule making that would be unleashed under the giant Senate health bill.”
TPMDC’s Cristina Bellatoni reports on a resurgence of television ads spotlighting pro or con positions on the health overhaul bills after a slowdown in the past months. “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce started a new campaign yesterday as well and Evan Tracey, [president of the Campaign Media Analysis group] expects interest groups to continue jumping into the fray. “These ads are here to stay, we know both sides will make the fall a referendum on health care,” Tracey said.
And The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent also noticed the trend: “Major liberal groups and labor unions allied with the White House are planning a massive TV ad push in coming days to get health reform across the finish line, and are vowing to match the huge amounts conservative groups are spending on the air attacking reform, multiple sources familiar with the plans tell me.”
