Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘conrad’

Finance Members Keep Baucus’ Frown Upside-down

The Finance Committee remains in the spotlight today as bloggers continue digging into the health reform bill and the politics plaguing its members.

Keith Hennessey, a former Republican staffer, offers a thorough overview of Baucus’ bill, summarizing it, he says, “in a matter similar to what I might have done for my colleagues while working in the White House.” His post is complete with sub-heads such as “substantively meaningless hat-tips for the left and right” and “overlooked political flashpoints.” Hennessey concludes, “I apologize for losing some of my usual objectivity, but I was unable to control myself.  I think this legislation would be disastrous.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein interviews moderate Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, and offers a glimpse of the politics behind his proposal to create nonprofit health insurance cooperatives:

I was also struck when I read the chairman’s mark that the co-op option seemed shackled. It couldn’t sell to large employers. It couldn’t set payment rates. The co-ops are not public. But they were being prevented from competing with insurers on a level playing field. It seemed like private insurers were being protected from competition.

I think there are things I would like to see that would make certain co-ops be given the full ability to compete that others are.

So you would like to see those restrictions lifted.

I would.

Why are they there?

Because that came out of the Group of Six discussions.

Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy previews the committee’s upcoming Tuesday debate of a public option.  While the Senate HELP Committee and all three House committees have included public plans in their reform bills, the landscape on Finance is much thornier, with Conrad pushing for nonprofit co-ops and Republican Olympia Snowe offering a “trigger” mechanism.  In a separate post, Volksy describes Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer’s conference call with reporters yesterday describing their strategy to insert a public plan into the bill. Volsky even provides a sound clip of the Senators’ tough talk, which is punctuated with a prediction about the final outcome of the public plan battle.

Offering a nice illustration of the interplay at work between Conrad, Rockefeller and Schumer, Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown described a scene at the Capitol yesterday: “And just as Rockefeller launched a takedown of Sen. Kent Conrad’s co-op proposal — mentioning the senator by name — Conrad himself walked into the otherwise empty room, his hand tucked into his pants pocket and a sly grin on his face. ”

John Thune of the Health Freedom blog says that the committee is “voting down amendments mostly along party lines.”

And Heritage’s Robert Book singles out the way the bill calculates subsidies for purchasing insurance and argues it “would have another, even stranger effect on hiring. Because the subsidy amount is based on family income and family size, not the wages that the employer pays, employers would naturally prefer to hire workers from higher-income families with fewer children. For example, hiring a single parent could incur a substantially higher tax penalty than hiring a worker with a working spouse or parent(s), or a worker who is single and childless.”

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Crumbling Support On Both Sides Previews Baucus’ Bill Release

After several weeks of intense negotiations with his bipartisan “gang of six,” Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., unveiled his bill today without a single Republican ally. Perhaps worse, it appears as if some Democratic support has eroded.

Bloggers are hungrily latching onto the new battle lines:

Nate Silver points out that Baucus’ bill “suddenly finds itself devoid of supporters. And everyone seems to have their own, unique way of objecting,” including several Democratic senators.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein looks at statements from committee member Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., saying, “I cannot agree with [Baucus] on this bill,” and sees trouble on the horizon: “If more liberal senators join Rockefeller in insisting on the government plan, it would put Democrats in a tight spot, because Baucus, Kent Conrad and other more moderate Democrats have said that a bill couldn’t pass the Senate with a government plan.”

Bob Laszewski says the final Committee vote is a harbinger for whether Democrats can get to 60 votes but “things don’t look good.”  Laszewki returns to his bipartanship mantra and says, “To get this done, we will need to build a consensus on health care from the middle and then build out. We need to start with the things everyone can agree on and then push simultaneously as far right and left as we can go and still hold a consensus. I know I have said this a few dozen times before on this blog, but Wyden-Bennett is an example of that middle-out model.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a closer look at the request from Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., for the Congressional Budget Office to examine the health reform bills in a 20, rather than 10, budget window. Klein indicates that something is not quite right:

Conrad’s record in the Senate, then, would lead you to believe a couple of things. For one, he distrusts long-range projections. Even 10 years is too uncertain. He also believes some priorities overwhelm deficit concerns, health-care coverage being one of them. But when faced with a health-care reform that will be deficit neutral within the 10-year time frame, he is demanding that it instead be measured against an even more uncertain 20-year time frame, and by an agency that he claims underestimates savings.

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

No Vacation from Criticism

Politicians continue to receive pushback as the health care debate marches on.

Cato’s Chris Edwards is unhappy with Republican National Committee head Michael Steele, who penned an op-ed in today’s Washington Post calling for “protecting” Medicare in the face of possible cuts in health reform legislation. Edwards calls Republicans’ “defense” of Medicare  “one of the most disturbing things about the current health care debate”  and concludes, “For apparently crass political reasons, Steele defends ‘our seniors,’ but at the expense of massive tax hikes on ‘our children’ if entitlement programs are not cut.”

Conor Friedersdorf on Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish ruminates over media coverage of the president’s bully pulpit: “It’s interesting how everyone assumes that the White House sets the national agenda when the president’s party controls Congress… whereas when the opposition party controls Congress the whole press narrative changes entirely, and treats Congressional leadership as a far more autonomous entity, an almost equal partner in what might happen next.”

Perhaps confirming Friedersdorf’s point, Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and Ryan Grim report on a key Democratic senator – North Dakota’s Kent Conrad — widely viewed as the originator of the plan to replace a public plan option with nonprofit cooperatives.  According to Stein and Grim, Conrad’s position on a public plan was cemented well before the summer’s health reform debate: “Though he has refused to take a public position on the matter, in private meetings with colleagues and staff dating back to the beginning of the year, Conrad has repeatedly expressed his opposition to a public option, four top Democratic aides who’ve sat in meetings with him told the Huffington Post.”

Also keeping a close eye on Conrad, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn reacts to the senator’s admission on Sunday’s Face the Nation that a health overhaul plan is “going to have to be significantly less than what we’ve heard talked about.” Cohn says “Scaling down legislation basically means gutting the benefits that would go to the working and middle class. In other words, it would help fulfill the fear many of these voters already have and that opponents of reform have tried hard to stoke: That reform doesn’t have much to offer the typical middle-income American.”

Meanwhile, Hot Air’s Allah Pundit questions the points in Obama’s weekly address on Saturday: “The ode to ‘vigorous debate’ from a guy who wanted a bill rammed through Congress before the recess? …. Exit question: Does he really think running through the same stale talking points week after week is finally going to change the public’s attitude about this? As Fred Barnes notes, this day-in day-out garbage about keeping your plan, etc, has practically devolved into shtick at this point. It’s almost as if he can’t quite believe people might disagree with him, and that if only he keeps repeating himself, eventually his shining logic will seep into their brains.”

Monday, August 24th, 2009

Co-ops Galore

Following speculation that the White House might support a nonprofit cooperative in lieu of a public plan option, only one thing is clear: bloggers disagree whether the co-ops would make a suitable substitute.

The Atlantic’s Chris Good reports the Republican National Committee sent a memo yesterday arguing that co-ops are “still government health care.”  The RNC based its memo on comments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who said, “We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op’, call it what you want.”  Good writes, “Problem is, it’s hard to say it’s the same as government-run health care without Republicans coming back at you and saying…the same thing.”

Heritage’s Mike Gonzalez parses recent statements lauding “choice and competition” from administration officials and says: “In this case, free market language is being used to sell the opposite. Having failed to sell the health care overhaul as universal coverage or as the government doing a better job than private companies, the Administration has shifted its rhetoric and is saying that all it wants to do is introduce ‘choice and competition’ into the insurance market.”

Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim takes issue with statements by Sen. Kent Conrad, who is responsible for the idea of a co-op alternative, that there’s not enough Senate votes for a public plan option.  According to Grim, “not a single member of the Democratic caucus — including Conrad himself — has actually announced that he or she would support such a filibuster.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says Conrad’s co-op idea is intended to solve a political problem, and thinks the jury is still out on what co-ops would do: 

As the situation stands, there’s no existing model for co-ops to follow and no policy specifics on Conrad’s idea, so it’s impossible to say whether, or how, they will work. I could imagine very good co-ops or totally useless ones. But given the political forces arrayed around the issue, I think that’s sort of the wrong question. The idea works if it somehow solves the political problem that birthed it.

Hot Air’s AllahPundit takes a different read of the politics, arguing that Democratic Senators should go forward with a public plan option and use reconciliation to pass the bill:

Why not do it? The Dems are going to own the bill one way or another, whether they do it with 50 Democratic votes or 60, and passing a bill with a public option would at least give their own side something to celebrate. The way they’re going now, they’re going to end up with something no one likes and take a beating for it forever from both sides.

Critical Condition’s Peter Ferrara explains why– co-ops or not –conservatives should oppose a health overhaul bill. Ferrara lists other possible features that would be objectionable: taxing health benefits, a “new national Health Insurance Commissioner,” employer and individual mandates.

Lastly, the American Prospect’s Mark Schmitt traces how a public plan option gained prominence as a political strategy and concludes:

The downsides are that the political process turns out to be as resistant to stealth single-payer as it is to plain-old single-payer. If there is a public plan, it certainly won’t be the kind of deal that could ‘become the dominant player.’ So now this energetic, well-funded group of progressives is fired up to defend something fairly complex and not necessarily essential to health reform. (Or, put another way, there are plenty of bad versions of a public plan.) The symbolic intensity is hard for others to understand. But the intensity is understandable if you recognize that this is what they gave up single-payer for, so they want to win at least that much.

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

Morning Roundup: Hacker on Conrad’s ‘Co-ops’, The Final Stretch

By Kate Steadman

Jacob Hacker, author of a health reform proposal centered around a Medicare-like public plan, has a post on TNR’s The Treatment to respond to Sen. Kent Conrad’s, D-N.D., compromise proposal to create nonprofit “co-ops”.  The ooperatives, intended to replace a new public plan operated by the government, have been getting a major buzz on the Web in the last few days.  Hacker’s take?  Co-ops aren’t necessarily bad policy, but they don’t come close to the strengths of a true public plan:

A national cooperative would still fall so dramatically short of a public plan that it would only be attractive in addition to a national public plan, not as a substitute for it.

Hacker continues, “Conrad’s idea appears to be yet another compromised compromise that cuts the heart out the idea of public plan choice on the alter of political expediency.”

Rob, who doesn’t give his last name, of the Say Anything Blog thinks Conrad’s compromise is a “trojan horse.” He argues:

The problem is that there isn’t anything reasonable about Conrad’s supposed compromise.  For proponents of limited government, it’s still a loss because it’s more government intervention.  It’s more government control.  It still moves us closer to what we don’t want, which is nationalized health care.

And libertarian Michael Tanner, of Cato, says Democratic reform bills under consideration “would dramatically transform the American health care system in a way that would harm taxpayers, health care providers, and — most importantly — the quality and range of care given to patients.”

Elsewhere, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein responds to a column by economist Tyler Cowen in Sunday’s New York Times.  In the piece, Cowen argues that it’s likely Congress will pass a health overhaul bill that will make promises, but “never suceed in lowering costs.”  Cowen thinks it’s up to President Obama to include tough cost controls, but Klein disagrees, saying the fault lies with Congress:

Liberals, after all, will sacrifice almost anything to radically expand coverage. This leaves cost-conscious conservative facing a bit of a dilemma. They can attack the most vulnerable parts of the policy — the cost controls — in the hopes of bringing the whole thing down. The downside to that, of course, is that liberals simply jettison cost-controls to protect the coverage expansion. For a fiscal conservative, this should be considered the worst of all worlds.

Perhaps these members read National Journal’s Health Care Expert Blog, where Marilyn Werber Serafini is soliciting last-minute advice for lawmakers before the final Senate committee bills drop this week: ” What is your final, most important, advice for lawmakers as they enter this critical stage?”

 Interesting Elsewhere:

The American Spectator’s Phil Klein says Republicans “seem to be coalescing around the argument that any legislation should not be rushed. ”

Fitzhugh Mullan and Elizabeth Wiley discuss how a reform bill could change graduate medical education on the Health Affairs blog.

Heritage’s The Foundry posts the audio of a conference call with Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., on health reform.

Chris Bowers of Open Left looks at the “Byrd Rule” and whether a health overhaul bill could be passed through reconciliation.

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Conrad’s ‘Co-ops’, House bill schedule: Your Friday Roundup

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein has an interview with Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., titled, “Has Kent Conrad Solved the Public Plan Problem?” Conrad’s proposal to create nonprofit cooperatives in lieu of the controversial government operated option has been making the rounds this week. Klein asks Conrad where the idea came from:

CONRAD: The G-11 group, which is the members of the Senate Republicans and Democrats, chairmen and ranking members of the key committees, who’ve been given the overall responsibility to cording health care reform in the Senate, asked me 10 days ago to come up with something to bridge the divide between those who are strong adherents to the public plan and those who are strongly opposed.

KLEIN: How do you respond to someone who says, this is a terrific idea. More competition is always welcome. But why instead of a public option? Why not do it alongside and let a thousand coverage models bloom?

CONRAD: Votes. The problem is this. If you’re in a 60 vote environment in the Senate — and I believe we are, because I believe reconciliation simply won’t work — if you begin tallying up the votes, I believe that virtually all Republicans are against the public option and some democrats are. So how do you get to 60?

KLEIN: How many Democrats would you estimate are against a public option?

CONRAD: I don’t know for certain, but I think at least three, and maybe more.

Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy has more, reporting that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said he is “inclined toward a co-op.”

POLITICO PULSE is reporting House Democratic leaders are trying to decide whether to release the full text of their bill next week or wait until after July 4th. According to POLITICO:

Here’s the calculation: If you release it now, does it give you the chance to get more Blue Dogs and liberals on board, or does it ‘hang out there,’ with weeks for everyone under the sun to shoot at it?

If they decide to release the bill next week, it would coincide with the Senate HELP Committee’s planned markup.

According to some right-leaning commentators, Democrats are doomed either way. James Capretta of the New Atlantis says:

Reality is starting to sink in. It’s one thing to promise massive new subsidies for insurance. It is quite another to put together a realistic plan to pay for the program, especially on a partisan basis. There is simply no politically easy or safe way to raise $1.5 trillion for a government takeover of American health care. Rank-and-file Democrats are starting to find that out.

Interesting Elsewhere:

Uwe Reinhardt of the New York Times’ Economix explains how economists estimate the cost of health care reform

The Health Affairs blog has posts from Ashish Jha and Amitabh Chandra on hospital costs and quality

Brian Klepper and David Kibbe on Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review say the health care industry has an Achilles heel – “it’s fundamentals have eroded, potentially easing the way for operation restructuring. Consider the evidence that commercial health plan enrollment is in freefall, as mainstream purchasers – employers and individuals – are priced out of the coverage market.”

WhiteHouse.gov has a post discussing President Obama’s health care town hall yesterday in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Friday, June 12th, 2009