KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics:

Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘house bill’

Range Of Emotions In Reaction To House Vote

 Bloggers’ reactions to Sunday’s historic health care bill vote ranged from reflective to outraged.

FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver tries to break down the polling stats to figure how why lawmakers voted the way they did, including plenty of graphs: “Basically, each Democrat’s vote [was] determined by two things: a member’s confidence that [President Barack] Obama could be an asset to them (he tended to get the benefit of the doubt on this — but only up to an extent) and frankly their conscience — as it regards both health care overall and the side issue of abortion.”

The National Journal’s Marilyn Werber Serafini asks her experts if the vote was the first step or a “done deal”? Responders include Newt Gingrich, John Goodman, John Sheils, Rep. Pete Stark and Grace-Marie Turner.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein announces he’s dedicating the blog to explaining the content of the health bill. He also derides political posturing during yesterday’s vote, saying, “It was a reminder of how far our politics have strayed, and how much more extreme our rhetoric has become, than the underlying legislation warrants. The deafening volume of the debate long ago drowned out its subject. Sadly, the Senate bill remains a careful contradiction that most people still don’t understand. It is a comprehensive reform with an incremental soul, but neither side has done enough to explain it that way.”

Critical Condition’s Jeffrey Anderson: “But far from striking a fatal blow to the cause of limited government and fiscal responsibility, Obama has awakened a sleeping giant. …So, the war has just begun, and we must be prepared to dig in for the long haul. Repeal will be a three-year process — more like a marathon than a sprint. If those of us who oppose Obamacare show as much determination to repeal it as Obama has shown in imposing it, we will prevail. Until victory is achieved, let us be committed to this five-word goal: Repeal, and then real reform.”

Brad Wright of Wright on Health: “Today I just want to say one simple thing: Sometimes politicians set aside personal interests to do what is right for the country. When they do so, they ought to be applauded for it.”

Newt Gingrich: “The Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine combined the radicalism of Alinsky, the corruption of Springfield and the machine power politics of Chicago. Sunday was a pressured, bought, intimidated vote worthy of Hugo Chavez but unworthy of the United States of America.”

 Health Beat Blog’s Maggie Mahar: “I am sorry to see the nation divided, but in this case, I believe that such sharp differences provided clarity. The moral choice was clear—as clear as it was when Congress enacted civil rights legislation.  To his great credit, despite an extraordinarily hostile environment, President Barack Obama persevered, and in the end he stood up. Last night, he quoted Lincoln: ‘I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true.’  Often, being true to yourself , and to principle, is the only way to win.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey asks if the bill can be repealed: “I agree that this bill has to be repealed, but let’s not underestimate the difficulties that presents.  It will be just as ugly as any real entitlement reform will be, with plenty of opportunity for opponents to demagogue Republicans as heartless meanies that want to strip the poor of their health care.”

Mark Trahant: “The three most important things to know about what health care reform means to Indian Country are simple ideas. First, the United States, officially and permanently, recognizes its trust and treaty obligation for health care delivery to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Second, there will be more money (not enough, but more) pumped into the Indian health system. And, third, President Barack Obama has delivered on a major, long-sought promise to Indian Country.”

The Health Care Blog’s Matthew Holt: “So it’s almost time to turn our attention away from payment reform, to delivery reform. Now every time in the past that we’ve had reform or something approaching it, those organizations who have shaped themselves to operate in an environment that rewards cost-effective innovation have ended up losing their financial shirts. … So the big question for the health care system going forward is, if providers start making the changes that will promote more cost-effective care, will they be rewarded or will they be hung out to dry?”

Heritage Foundation President Edward Feulner recorded a video statement protesting the bill’s passage, saying, “What has happened is intolerable”:

Grace-Marie Turner: “And the people’s voice will be heard the next time they have a chance to speak, at the polls in November. But today is a sad day for our great country. Neither equality nor liberty has been served. As Republican leader John Boehner told his fellow congressmen, by passing this bill, ‘we break our trust with Americans.’”

And The New America Foundation’s Joanne Kenen: “Now what? After 15 months of focus on process and procedures, on incremental steps toward a monumental goal, how will passage of health reform play a few days and weeks from now?”

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Another Wrench In Health Overhaul Debate, This Time From CMS

A new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report has sparked a renewed wave of attacks and defenses of Democrats’ plans to overhaul the health care system. The report found the House-passed health bill would increase health costs by $289 billion over 10 years and could cause reduced access to services for Medicare beneficiaries.  As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says, like much in politics, “What they found depends on who you ask,” though he acknowledges “the report may prove very important in the coming negotiations between the House and the Senate.” 

Heritage’s Conn Carroll says the report “blows the lid off of every one of Obama’s claims” about the health bill, and calls it a “deathblow for Obamacare.” 

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes, “In other words, the warnings about the Canadianization of the American health-care system have proven correct, especially as far as Medicare enrollees are concerned.  We already have a crisis in providers for the government-run network.  Thanks to unrealistic compensation schedules, many providers have stopped taking new Medicare patients, forcing them to fewer providers and into longer waits for care.  The CMMS [sic] study shows that the massive cuts proposed by the Pelosi plan in the House and the Reid plan coming to the Senate floor would — not surprisingly — make a bad situation worse.”

Michelle Malkin reacts, “Ho-hum. Nothing to see here except another massive act of generational theft.”

Reason’s Peter Suderman on CMS’s estimate of the Medicare cuts: “Now, I think we ought to resist the idea that Medicare should be untouchable, and I think Republicans (who ordered the report, presumably expecting to find this outcome) have done themselves a disservice by pushing that notion. But I also think it’s pretty disingenuous to sell a plan based on the idea that you can make massive cuts to the program without substantially altering or reducing benefits in ways that beneficiaries won’t like.”

Meanwhile, over on the left…

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum argues that the report itself is pessimistic:

What CMS is saying is that the healthcare sector tends to be labor intensive, and thus won’t be able to improve its efficiency as rapidly as the broader economy.  Which might be true. Still, it’s worth noting that this is basically a counsel of despair.  It suggests that controlling the growth of healthcare spending is hopeless, and any attempt to try it won’t work.  We’re just going to have to pay doctors and hospitals as much as they want. I don’t buy that.  It’s plain that eventually we’re going to have to control healthcare spending one way or another, and the sooner we give it a serious try the better.

Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy thinks the report is a “wake-up call to for reformers as much as it is a full and complete rejection of critics who argue that the House bill will undermine the existing health care system.”  He writes, “The report is not without its positives, and lawmakers must accept the bad with the good. If the CMS analysis suggests that reform legislation should adopt robust cost-containment provisions, it also applauds the bill for expanding coverage by building and strengthening the current public/private system.”

Lastly, more from Ezra Klein, who recommends next steps for Democrats:

It seems like the smart path forward is to give these cuts a credible shot, and if they don’t work, either ease the cuts or reform Medicare to save money in other ways, perhaps by going after fee-for-service more aggressively.

But Medicare cuts are a crude tool. The more damning conclusion from the CMS report is that the House bill has little else to control costs, and that’s largely accurate. This report shouldn’t lead reformers to abandon efforts to trim Medicare, but it should convince them that the bill can do more on the cost control front.

The Senate now has the advantage of reading this report, questioning CMS about its methodologies and tweaking its bill to ensure a better verdict. But it’s already part of the way there. The Senate Finance Committee’s bill has two cost-control measures the House … doesn’t: Super MedPac and the excise tax. Alongside that, it has a much more aggressive package of delivery-system reforms.

Monday, November 16th, 2009

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

Taxing and Saving?

Yesterday we looked at Ezra Klein’s list of ways Democrats could avoid a filibuster, and today abortion rights supporters might see a benefit to using a different way of bypassing the Senate tradition: Politico’s Jonathan Allen reports that “Democrats will almost certainly kill the anti-abortion Stupak amendment in the process if they go to Plan B on passing health care — using a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill — budget experts say.”

There’s been another theme emerging during this recess week besides more back-and-forth over the Stupak amendment: controlling costs and raising taxes. 

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey is unhappy with a proposal to increase the capital gains tax, saying, “The Pelosi Plan would strangle the economy.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky makes a table that compares increasing the Medicare payroll tax (currently being floated in the Senate) versus the House’s surtax on high income earners.

Robert Laszewski expands on his nod toward an independent commission to look at health care costs. He thinks the fate of a bill “might just hinge more not on how ‘robust’ the public option would be but on how ‘robust’ an entitlement commission would be.”

Perhaps there’s another reason for a commission: Heritage’s Ed Haislmaier is unconvinced that Congress will make the future cuts to Medicare that it is proposing: “Enacting H.R. 3961 would mean that Congress has thrown in the towel on its previous attempt to control Medicare spending. It will also mean that no rational person can believe that Congress will actually enforce any new Medicare spending cuts included in pending health care legislation. That, in turn, would mean that new health care legislation would actually result in further, massive increases in either Federal borrowing or taxes.”

Lastly, a key architect of Massachusetts’ reform plan and an economic adviser to many Dems, MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, offers his thoughts on the amount of cost control in the bills. It’s not necessarily a ringing endorsement (via an interview with Ezra Klein):

Here’s how I think about this: Do you know Pascal’s wager? Why not believe in God? I think of health-care reform similarly. We don’t know if we’ll really bend the cost curve. But if we do this and we don’t do anything, we still go bankrupt in 100 years. We don’t lose much. But if we do it and it works, then it’s a savior.

It also moves the conversation on cost control in a way that’s impossible without this bill. It does real things on cost control, and then it does real things to make cost control more politically viable. It lays the groundwork for doing more. To kill this bill for not doing enough on cost control would be like criticizing the Yankees for not winning the Super Bowl. They won the World Series! They did what they could do!

Friday, November 13th, 2009

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

Division Continues Over Stupak Abortion Amendment

Bloggers continue to mull over the abortion amendment to the House bill – which the The Daily Beast’s Dana Goldstein calls “the wedge dividing Obama’s health coalition.” 

politifactPolitiFact.com rates Rep. Nita Lowey’s statement that the Stupak amendment “puts new restrictions on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money,”  calling it “false.” According to PolitiFact, “There’s plenty of room for debate about how the Stupak-Pitts amendment will eventually shape the availability of abortion coverage. But Lowey is wrong on two points.”

Cato’s Michael Cannon says government subsides of health care cause the underlying dilemma:

Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.

Thus both sides’ fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care. Tip of the hat to President Obama for creating this teachable moment.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein agrees: “The only reason the Stupak-Pitts amendment would apply restrictions to the private market is that the government would be drastically expanding its role in the private market as a result of the health care legislation.”

The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reports that Rep. Jan Schakowsky is the first lawmaker to publicly state she’ll vote “no” against a final health overhaul bill containing Stupak’s abortion language.

Schakowsky isn’t the only one that is withdrawing support. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein responds to the New England Journal of Medicine’s Marcia Angell who calls the House bill “worse than nothing.”  Klein strongly disagrees: “Failure does not breed success. Obama’s defeat will not mean that more ambitious reforms have ‘a better chance of trying again.’ It will mean that less ambitious reformers have a better chance of trying next time.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn counters Angell as well as statements from other fellow liberals, saying:

As I’ve argued repeatedly, the House bill is not close to perfect. Neither is its Senate counterpart. But we don’t pass perfect laws in the U.S. We pass imperfect ones and then do our very best to improve them over time.

It happened that way with Social Security and Medicare. It can happen that way with comprehensive health care reform, too. But only if we do something, rather than nothing.

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

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

Outrage Erupts Over Stupak Amendment

Bloggers have erupted in response to Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment that bans the use of federal funds for abortion to a significantly broader extent than ever before. It also prohibits plans offered on the exchange that receive subsidies from covering abortion services.

It’s just another twist in the already contentious debate that’s left many liberals wondering how much more they can stomach and a White House trying to stay above the fray.

Time’s Amy Sullivan examines some of the events that led to Speaker Pelosi’s acceptance of the Stupak amendment:

[It] also seems clear that the Democratic leadership and White House dropped the ball on finding a compromise with pro-life Democrats. The deal reached late last night/early this morning in the Speaker’s office is not a compromise; it is in fact more than the Catholic bishops and Stupak himself asked for as late as mid-summer. The Speaker didn’t get rolled by crafty or stubborn members of her party, though. This was a predictable consequence of a high-handed approach to dealing with pro-life members of the Democratic caucus.

The American Prospect’s Ann Friedman reacts:

This also sets apart women’s rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called progressive values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic Party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.

It’s pretty cramped underneath this bus, what with 50 percent of Americans down here.

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that President Obama’s press secretary refused to take a position on the amendent during today’s briefing: “Despite pledging during the presidential campaign to protect a woman’s right to choose, the Obama White House is refusing to weigh in on an amendment that represents perhaps the most restrictive anti-abortion measure introduced in a generation.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn says, “Opponents of abortion rights won a significant political victory last night, making it more likely that millions of American women will no longer be able to purchase insurance that covers abortion services.”

Jessica Aarons guest-blogs on Wonk Room, calling the amendment “A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access.” She argues, “Eighty-seven percent of employer plans offer abortion coverage. None of that will matter if the Senate takes its cues from the House. In every other way, this bill will expand access to health care. But for millions of women, they are about to lose coverage they currently have and often need.”

However, some republican and conservatives think the Stupak amendmenet may spell the end for reform.  The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack examines Republican strategy on the amendment:

Substantively, the Stupak amendment was a “tremendous victory for pro-lifers, and the size of the vote actually should occasion some comment about the audacity of the Democratic leadership to try to block the overwhelming will of the House,” says National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, author of The Party of Death. “I think we have really pushed far into the future any chance that they’re going to make a run at the Hyde amendment.”

Strategically, the Stupak amendment has divided the Democrats. Pelosi’s decision to allow a vote on it elicited “tears from some veteran [Democratic] female lawmakers.” … Democrats are left playing a game of chicken.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey looks at reports that several Republican lawmakers were considering voting “present” instead of approving the amendment.  Morrissey believes the Republicans did “the right thing” voting yes:

Republicans can make that argument only because they supported the Stupak amendment, even against what appeared to be their longer-term interests at that moment.  They acted on principle and can now argue that the Stupak coalition must respond in kind or be exposed as the worst kind of hypocrites in election challenges next year — challenges which that Stupak town-hall meeting shows will resonate.  Had they tried playing the legislative game with the Stupak amendment, this rift among Democrats shown by Sargent would never have appeared, and they would have lost the ability to highlight a backroom effort to rid the bill of an amendment that received more votes than the bill itself.

As the debate continues, there’s more buzz in reference to this post from The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent, who reports that several lawmakers are pledging to strip the Stupak amendment from the bill.  He posts video of Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who says she has the votes to overturn the amendment. However, according to Sargent, the politics going forward get much more complex:

It will be much tougher for pro-choice Dems to cave and support the bill with Stupak than it was for House progressives to cave and back the bill despite its lack of a robust public option.

Here’s why: Because the public option had initially been written off for dead, the version liberals did secure allowed them to claim they had won something. By contrast, Stupak is a significant step backward for advocates of abortion rights and women’s health issues. So it will be much tougher for pro-choice House Dems to back a final bill with Stupak in the end. This will intensify.

Monday, November 9th, 2009

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

House Calls?

Bloggers are rushing to put in their two cents before the House’s scheduled vote on a landmark health overhaul bill late  Saturday afternoon.  But questions remain on whether leaders have  enough votes, and Majority Whip Steny Hoyer admitted to reporters that a delay was possible.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey calls the scheduling of the vote a “Hail Nancy play.  She couldn’t afford to wait too long for the vote after dropping 2,000 pages on members last week, and having them see the results of the elections this week.  Pelosi and Hoyer thought that rushing a vote would allow them to bully recalcitrant moderates into support.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy compiled a table comparing amendments on two key issues holding up votes: abortion and immigration.

Cato’s Michael Cannon in the National Review Online calls the bill a “$1.5 trillion fraud,” zeroing in on the off-budget costs of an individual mandate.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says House leadership is “mired in negotiations with three different types of Democrats who are proving restive at the eleventh hour.”  According the Klein, those groups are the “controversialists” (lawmakers concerned with “electric” issues like abortion and immigration), “centrist skeptics” (general concerns about ideas like taxes or a public option) and lawmakers “worried about the process” (they don’t want to vote for a more liberal bill then the Senate.)

And Erin Kanoy of the Heritage Foundation looks at what might be happening in the Rules Commiteee: who set the guidelines for tomorrow’s debate: “The rule being debated today will not only cover HR 3962 but will also apply to HR 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act, also known as the Doc Fix. This is a procedural gimmick that allows the costly Doc Fix bill to be combined with H.R. 3962 after the bill passes the House. This allows Congressional Leaders to avoid a stand alone vote on Doc Fix in the Senate.”

Stay tuned to KHN  this weekend for more coverage of the House vote.

Saturday, November 7th, 2009

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

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

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

Contact Us

Facebook

RSS

twitter

Recent Posts

Archives

kff.org

© 2012 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.