KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics:

Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘gop’

Right Struggles To Unite Opposition To Health Overhaul

As the health overhaul debate continues, it’s clear that Republican leaders are still struggling to find a message. Granted, one prominent theme can be built around ever-present attacks on the Democratic plan’s sizeable role for the federal government as well as its burgeoning spending. Still, right-leaning commentators remain unhappy with the GOP’s attempts to reclaim the debate  – in other words, the recently released GOP health bill. Some conservative activists are so restless and discontented, they plan to take to Capitol Hill today with protests planned for today.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll posts a chart that quite clearly illustrates conservative concerns about the role of government.  It tracks changes in the percent of health care dollars spent by the government since 1993 and how that may change should the House version of a health overhaul become law:

And while Republican lawmakers were seeking to avoid the above scenario in their new alternative health overhaul plan, its reception contiues to get worse after an official Congressional Budget Office score was released yesterday evening. 

Director Douglas Elmendorf says the bill would reduce the deficit by $68 billion between 2010-2019 and insure an additional three million people.  It would also modestly reduce premiums.

Liberal commentators are pouncing – arguing that the bill covers almost no additional people and actually reduces the deficit less than the current Democratic House version. 

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein seems incredulous:

The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than [House Minority Leader] Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill. This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It’s one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It’s another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren’t even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn’t perfect, but in comparison, it’s looking astonishingly good.

Jonathan Cohn parses CBO’s score and concludes: “So, yes, the Republican health care bill will lower premiums overall. But many people in poor health will see their premiums go up. And many people will get lower premiums only because they’re getting inferior coverage. Meanwhile, more than 50 million people will have no insurance whatsoever.”

And some conservatives aren’t too pleased either.  John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis titles his post: “Republicans Show Why They Deserve to be the Minority Party.”  According to Goodman, “As I’ve said before, the opposition forces inside the Beltway are in total disarray. The only thing that has mattered in the past six months has been grass roots.”

Similarly, Philip Klein of the American Spectator calls himself “unimpressed” by the proposal and says, “The GOP proposal isn’t what I would consider real reform. It’s more of a document that Republicans have put out so they can say they have some sort of health care bill that reduces premiums at a fraction of the cost of the Democrats’ bill.”

But Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey is satisfied, he writes, “For the 87% of Americans who have insurance and who overwhelmingly like the system, this is a much better prescription for real cost savings, and without the heavy government intervention that threatens the liberty and economic stability of Americans.”

In the meantime, conservative protestors from around the nation are descending on Capitol Hill in a health care event known as Operation Housecall.  The event was organized by Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachman, and as Patricia Murphy Reports, she urged demosntrators to “Go into the Capitol and find members of Congress…Don’t bring your pitchforks, bring your video cameras. And get them on record saying how they’re going to vote and why. And tell them, ‘Take your hands off my health care!’ “

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

More On The GOP Health Bill

Even though the venerable New York Times says it “has no chance of passing,” buzz is building around a GOP alternative health plan that counts among its key provisions enhancing Health Savings Accounts, allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies through age 25 and encouraging the sale of insurance policies across state lines.

The bill was released yesterday evening, and The Washington Post’s Ben Pershing reports: “[House Minority Leader John Boehner] said he also expected to have the GOP’s bill online for 72 hours, though it remains unclear whether the minority’s proposal will actually get a shot on the floor. …. Some GOP lawmakers have used controversial language in criticizing the Democrats’ bill. On the House floor Monday, Rep.  Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said:  ’ I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country. ’ Asked for his reaction to Foxx’s comment, Boehner said  ’ members are entitled to their opinions ’  but wouldn’t say whether he agreed with the sentiment. ” 

Bloggers reacted even when there was only a draft:

NPR’s April Fulton writes on their Health Blog that the plan is creating “a strong feeling of deja vu.”  Fulton continues, “That’s because the 230-page draft contains a laundry list of material the GOP has trotted out for years but has never quite gotten through Congress.”

 Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky quips, “We Read the GOP Health Care Plan So You Don’t Have To.” Volsky offers a brief summary of the plan and concludes, “In short, the amendment shifts the costs and risks of insurance onto individuals and divides the market into low-cost plans for the healthy and high-cost insurance for the sick.”

Think Progress’ Matthew Yglesias isn’t impressed either:

If you’re uninsured, this won’t help you.

If you’re insured, but you worry that circumstances beyond your control—a global financial meltdown leading to layoffs at your company, say—this won’t help you.

If you’re insured, but you worry that if you get sick your insurer will gin up some pretext to drop your coverage, this won’t help you.

If you’re insured but your premiums are escalating so fast you worry that you won’t be able to afford to keep paying them, this won’t help you.

Politico Pulse interviews Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, who defends the plan:

The GOP plan, not the Democrats’ trillion-dollar government takeover, is what most Americans want. It focuses on lowering health care costs and increasing access to quality care – including for those with pre-existing conditions – at a price our country can afford. Our plan does not try to do EVERYTHING because the American know we can’t pay for that. When the Democrats criticize the scope of our bill, they are, in fact, making our point.

Meanwhile, conservative commentators are encouraged by news that a health overhaul bill could be pushed into the new year.  

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey says President Obama’s other priority — a cap-and-trade bill — could be in danger as well., “If the health-care overhaul gets pushed into 2010, that strategy goes out the window — for both bills.  The closer their votes come to Election Day, the less enthusiastic red-state Democrats will get about either of them, perhaps especially cap-and-trade.  With majorities of likely voters unhappy with both bills, Democrats would be daring the electorate to throw them out of power in the House, and handing the Republicans an easy campaign against big government, high taxation, and undisciplined spending.”

And Reason’s Peter Suderman thinks the Right’s efforts to slow down the bills’ progress are working:

Opposition strategy on health care has consisted of three parts—delay, delay, and delay—on the theory that the longer this drags on, the less likely it is to pass. I think that theory is basically sound: Pollster.com shows opposition to the health-care bill rising pretty steadily throughout the year. Indeed, this tactic—let’s call it the Rolling Stones-strategy—recently pushed public opposition to the plan past the 50 percent mark, proving that for those trying to take down the once-inevitable health-care bill, time is most definitely on their side.

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

New GOP Health Care Strategies

The GOP and conservatives appear to be shifting opposition strategies as Democrats press forward with reform efforts (The House is scheduled to debate its almost 2,000 page overhaul bill this week.)

The GOP is reportedly set to release a new alternative to the House bill.  Minority Leader John Boehner said on Sunday: “What we do is we try to make the current system work better.”

Boehner delivered the Saturday Republican video address, and Sarah Palin  plugged it on her popular Facebook page, calling it a “game changer”.  According to Hot Air’s Allah Pundit, it was an unusual endorsement from Palin, who has been critical of party leaders.

A bill has not been released yet, but the GOP’s congressional website says it will be offered during floor debate this week.  According to the post, the bill emphasizes:

  • “Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
  • Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
  • Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
  • Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.”

Time’s Karen Tumulty reacted, “But when you look at what the House Minority Leader is describing as an “innovative” solution, you’ve got to wonder. Specifically, he points to the kind of high-risk pools that many states have established for those who find themselves uninsurable as a result of a serious illness. That is not a new idea–some states have had these pools for three decades–or a solution for many. These pools already exist in more than 30 states, but they tend to be too expensive for those with limited means to buy into. And often, people cannot get into them for as long as a year after they apply.”

Elsewhere, conservative bloggers are latching onto a new opposition meme: Democratic lawmakers used “budget gimmicks” in order to receive specific cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

James Capretta writes on Critical Condition, “In sum, then, the House plan is not a $900 billion program. It’s a $725 billion tax increase and a $1.5 trillion spending program. Tax and spend, indeed.”

And Dennis Smith of Heritage thinks the Finance Committee bill suffers from a similar affliction: “In the desperate attempt to portray their massive new spending bill as ‘budget neutral,’ Congress and the Obama Administration are relying on more desperate measures to hide the true cost of the legislation.”  Smith points to a specific provision that states the Secretary of Health and Human Services can reduce subsidies or credits should the bill increase the federal deficit.

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

GOP Fires Back While One of Their Own Gets Pummeled

Republicans are attempting to prove to their Democratic critics that they’re not the party of “no” when it comes to health reform. 

Jeffrey Anderson, who worked at HHS during the Bush administration, writes in the Weekly Standard that Republicans need to offer a plan that is “as short and simple as possible,” and put together a one-page proposal (pdf).

Of course, some left-leaning commentators aren’t happy with the plans being offered.  The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein critiques a health overhaul plan from Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., saying, “Price isn’t learning from past policy mistakes, and so he means to repeat them.”

rationing graphicCato’s Michael Cannon points out one Republican tactic he dislikes, exemplified by recent statements from former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Cannon writes, “Conservatives and Republicans need a better way to talk about cost-containment than the typical anti-comparative-effectiveness-research argument.”  Cannon argues that what Republicans truly oppose is government rationing of health services and says, “Gingrich should have … attacked government rationing head-on.  Instead, he portrays information (!) as a dark and sinister force.” (Graphic from a report by Cannon)

When you hear the name “Betsy McCaughey,” you might not think immediately think of The New Republic. But the controversial, conservative former New York lieutenant governor has stirred up a lot of chatter this week. 

McCaughey, who penned an influential article in 1994 critiquing the Clinton health plan for The New Republic, has attracted renewed attention for her controversial op-eds on current health overhaul efforts. 

The chatter began with the New Republic’s blistering profile (by Michelle Cottle) that features, among other anecdotes, staid Brookings economist Henry Aaron presenting ”quote by excruciating quote–McCaughey’s reputation as among the most irresponsible, dishonest, and destructive players on the public stage.”

The profile’s timing is serendipitous — a debate was scheduled Monday night between McCaughey and Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. and hosted by Politico’s Ben Smith.  Smith notes after the debate, “[I] couldn’t help being struck by the difference in the reception to her 1994 New Republic article, which won her a National Magazine Award, despite White House fury, and the frontal assault on her this year.”

Finally Andrew Sullivan, who was TNR’s editor at the time, weighs in with a mea culpa (“its premise that these potential consequences were indisputably in the bill in that kind of detail was simply wrong”) for McCaughey’s original article today, with one caveat:

Again, I take responsibility. I was the editor; I threatened to quit on another occasion; it was my call; and I took credit for its impact; and did not criticize her (and praised her tenacity) subsequently. No one else is responsible. In retrospect, it was not my finest hour.

But look: it was one piece in a magazine. It’s being treated as if it were a turning point in history. Please. There’s one reason the Clinton healthcare bill failed and it isn’t Betsy McCaughey. It’s Hillary Clinton.

And finally, Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy blogs another heated debate between McCaugher and Weiner on MSNBC Tuesday morning. One fiery exchange:

“Anthony, you are ignorant about health insurance,” she said, before insisting that “this will go down in history as one of the most browbeating interviews in television history.” “I hope that it does,” Ratigan replied. “And maybe you’ll learn at that point then to answer questions as opposed to go on television and cast accusations.”

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Talking Political Strategy

As the health overhaul debate moves forward, several bloggers are pondering political strategies.

Pollster.com’s Brendan Nyhan takes another look at polls following President Obama’s September 9th health care speech and finds there was “a small upward blip after the speech but the series quickly returned to its previous trajectory.” Nyhan concludes, “I’m emphasizing this point because there’s a misperception among journalists that the president can easily move public opinion. As we’ve seen again and again over the years, it’s simply not true, but the lack of followup by the press means that the lesson is never learned.”

Bob Laszewski reemerges after a silent second half of September to pontificate about Democrats’ efforts: “The leadership and the White House will do anything they can to get any bill that qualifies as a breakthrough. If they can get this to within a handful of votes in the House and one or two Senate votes they will drag this thing across the line.”  Laszewski identifies three “converging issues:” Democrats’ desire to pass a bill, low public support and differences between the House and Senate versions that have yet to be ironed out.  He concludes, “Just how will they finally sort-out? That will make for the most fascinating domestic political battle in recent history.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn lays out the swing vote possiblities among members of the Senate Finance Committee: Democrats Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden, and Republican Olympia Snowe.  According to Cohn’s math, Baucus can lose all of the panel’s Republicans plus one Dem, but if another Democrat votes against the bill, one Republican must vote for it.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein, jumping off a Wall Street Journal article, envisions a new White House strategy building off on attacks from conservatives: ”So as Obama enters the stage of the health care debate in which he’ll have to find a way to talk liberals into accepting less, his best ally may be his critics on the right. One can see a White House pitch to liberals that more or less amounts to, a loss on health care means victory for Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.”

Lastly, Matthew Yglesias, traveling in Sweden, visited a museum that had an exhibit on pre-modern health care.  The experience led him to mull over what a health reform debate would look like in 1500, and Yglesias wonders if things would actually be so different:

But whatever elements of human psychology—some combination of wishful thinking plus Robin Hanson’s point that we spend on health care for relatives not only because we care but also to show we care—created a viable market in non-cures are still with us. And that’s got to be an important factor in why it’s hard to design satisfactory health care systems. It’s noteworthy when you compare what different countries do that there’s enormous diversity in policy while the diversity in actual outcomes is hard to find and hard to measure.

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

The Tweetest Things

From this morning’s Politico front page: “Revenge is Tweet” — Kenneth Vogel reports on a new study that found almost twice as many Republican lawmakers have Twitter accounts compared to Democrats. Politico takes a closer look at some of the leading “tweeters”: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.  

Validating Politico’s premise, a look at some tweets from yesterday’s Finance Committee markup: Republican John Cornyn tweeted “That was then, this is now, ” linking to a CBS News piece on “Five Health Care Promises Obama Won’t Keep”.  And Grassley weighed in this morning (during the Finance markup) in his famous disjointed abbreviations: “If u hv time watch Finance Comm during amending process of Health Care. Affects 1/6th economy and evry American. Big lift for Congress.”  The only Democrat who weighed in, Sen. Bob Menedez, just posted pictures of the markup scene.

Quick Hits:

  • CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf doles out the agency’s judgment on the original subsidies to purchase health insurance in the Finance bill. 
  • The Kaiser Family Foundation has a new ’subsidy calculator’ that estimates premiums and government assistance under the various reform proposals. (KHN is a project of the Foundation.)
  • FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver examines poll numbers and asks if being part of the “Gang of Six” contributes to declining approval ratings. 
  • James Capretta on the New Atlantis proclaims the “Death of Medicare Reform.”
  • The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait wonders if Republicans are committing “a long-term policy blunder” in their opposition to health reform.
  • CyberspacesTV won 2nd place in a video contest from the Galen Institute, which promotes free-market ideas in health policy, that looks at cancer survival rates and wait times in Canada and the United Kingdom.

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

The Web’s Word

The online response to Presiden’t Obama’s health care address to Congress showcases the range of online discussion: a huge variety of (sometimes predictable) viewpoints, creative graphics and passionate reactions.

For a quick overview of web chatter, take a gander at Marilyn Werber-Serafini and her experts on the National Journal’s blog.  She asked, “What is the single most important point that President Obama made in his speech to Congress? Will his speech break the stalemate in Congress?” and received 22 responses (at this publishing), the most this year, from a range of lawmakers and policy experts, including Chuck Grassley, James Rohack, Karen Ignagni and Henry Waxman..

To show the evolution of the debate (or not) Brad Wright pulled clips of Obama’s and Clinton’s major health care addresses and made corresponding word clouds from the top 25 words used in each speech.  The graphics offer a look at the way health reform debates have evolved in the corresponding 17 years.

Clinton:

Obama:

Obamas Word Cloud

Wright notes:

Clinton emphasized the health care system, and focused on universal coverage using words like “people” “every” and “Americans.” He mentioned cost, businesses, and doctors, but not at any great length. Clinton was about health care system reform that would cover everyone.

By contrast, Obama talked last night about insurance–far more than Clinton ever did–and he also frequently mentioned companies–as in “insurance companies”–not to be confused with businesses, which the President also mentioned. Obama spoke a bit about costs, but no more so than Clinton.

But back to last night.  Some right-leaning commentators were unmoved by Obama’s claim of having a “plan.”

James Capretta of the New Atlantis said, “President Barack Obama says he wants to be the last president who has to deal with health care. But it is abundantly clear from his speech tonight that he has no plan to fix the problems in health care as they exist today, much less to settle the issue for good.”

In a post titled “The President Learned Nothing From August,” Heritage’s Mike Gonzalez strikes a similar note, responding to Obama’s statement that “there remain some significant details to iron out:”

On that score President Obama was right. It may have been, however, a bit of an understatement. Absent, of course, was how exactly all the savings he confidently predicted would materialize, how exactly the government would prevent employers from dumping all their employees into a government plan and how czars and boards would operate without bureaucrats coming between Americans and their doctors. Ah, details, details. … In fact, while he kept referring to “our plan” he never explained whose plan he meant. One of the two House plans? The one Senate plan that exists or the Finance one that’s under construction? What’s he actually for? What’s the President against?

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey also felt there were no new ideas and that Obama “derided” his critics:

If Obama just intended to fire up his left wing, then this speech was a success.  If he intended on selling ObamaCare to the majority of Americans who oppose it, Obama’s speech was an unmitigated disaster.  He offered no new arguments, and explicitly derided people who didn’t buy them the first fifteen times he’s offered the old ones.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn believes there are three ways to assess the speech and he saw a theme laying low in the address:

You can look at it as a blueprint–and try to decide whether Obama’s health care plan makes sense. I think it does, although, to be fair, I’ve thought that all along. You can judge it as a political exercise. Did it help Obama’s cause or hurt it? But there’s a third way to think about the speech. You can see if was about something more than health care reform–specifically, whether it was an effort to say something broader, about how our society is organized and how we might be able to change it. I think it was, if you listened long enough. And I liked what I heard, even if Obama said it in his typically nuanced way.

Cato’s Michael Cannon “translates” Obama’s speech.  An excerpt:

Obama: Some… supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Translation: I will never let seniors control their own health care dollars. I will never give up Washington’s control over your health care decisions.  Mmmmuuuuhahahahahaha!

Ezra Klein’s says Obama’s plan is about improvement, not change:

But if Obama hasn’t created the perfect plan, he’s created something arguably more impressive: a plan that actually might pass. That plan might not do enough to change the system, and it may not spend enough to protect everybody, but there is plenty in the proposal that will better the lives, health coverage, and financial security for millions of real people. It will insure around 30 million Americans and protect tens of millions more from insurer discrimination, medical bankruptcy and rescission. It will bring more evidence to medicine and more competition to the insurance market. That may not be perfection, but it is improvement. And it is achievable.

Time’s Karen Tumulty asks, “Within the House Chamber, he has provided the guidance that lawmakers have been begging for. But the real question is this: Has Obama provided the reassurance it will take to bring back the rest of the country?”

And finally, a look at Twitter.  The social networking and micro-blogging service offered a window into the different reactions.  Some examples below, or visit the #hctj search on Twitter to see more:

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Adjust Course?

September is shaping up to be another busy month in the health reform debate: several news outlets report that President Obama is likely to adjust course by giving a major speech next week outlining specifics of an overhaul bill.  Obama has so far remained out of the thicket by letting Congressional leaders author legislation — a controversial move in itself. 

Bloggers, naturally, have plenty to say about the potential new strategy.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey quips, “Wait — this is priceless. Obama waited five months to finally divulge his demands for ObamaCare, and Axelrod says Republicans have bargained in bad faith? Maybe Axelrod would do better to tell his boss to stop outsourcing his work to Pelosi, Reid, & Co. and start getting to work a little sooner — perhaps in the next month or two.”

Ed Kilgore, aka The Democratic Strategist, thinks it’s a good move: “The White House’s planned moves should at least calm down progressives who had feared the President was happy to let his signature initiative rise and fall without ever saying exactly what he was willing to expend political captal to accomplish.”

The National Review’s Tevi Troy thinks the move will be good for liberals and conservatives, but “presidential involvement won’t change the fact that the bills produced thus far do not meet the president’s stated goals of reducing costs and providing access for all, and they don’t fix the underlying problems of our health-care system. Let the battle be joined.”

Obama can try to reclaim the public debate, but success still depends on Democratic leaders’ ability to navigate the legislative process.

Former Republican staffer Keith Hennessey details the different strategy scenarios that Congress might attempt to get a bill passed. Hennessey predicts a “55% chance of failure,” and explains: “What follows is highly judgmental, and I can prove none of it. It can and will change rapidly beginning seven days from now. My only defense is that over a 15-year period a President and two Senators paid me in part to do this kind of analysis. You get it for free.”

And while Hennessey thinks it’s unlikely that a bipartisan deal will ultimately go through (10% chance), The New Republic’s Suzy Khimm did some digging to find out exactly what Republican Senator Olympia Snowe wants in a bill. Khimm writes, “Altogether, these positions put Snowe to the right of many if not most Democrats. But not that far to the right. In other words, she appears to be negotiating in good faith—in other words, her interest in passing reform seems genuine.”

If Democrats are unable to garner Snowe’s or other Republican votes, they may attempt to pass legislation through budget reconciliation.  Some left-leaning bloggers are responding to Brian Beutler’s (of TPMDC) post on using reconciliation from , who predicts, “Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that’s modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it’s to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.”  (This scenario was given a 25% chance by Hennessey.)

Strategy and calculations aside, reform opponents’ passion continues to rage:  Think Progress quotes Rep. Michelle Bachman’s, R-Minn., speech to the Independence Institute: “This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass…Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom. And we may never be able to restore it if we don’t man up and take this one on.”

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | No Comments »

Contact Us

Facebook

RSS

twitter

Recent Posts

Archives

kff.org

© 2013 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.