Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘obama’

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: house bill, obama, vote
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Will Health Reform Pass?

Bloggers are wondering whether a health overhaul bill can actually pass — and most are focused on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ability to drum up enough votes in the House.

Time’s Karen Tumulty says Democratic lawmakers are caught in a “prisoners’ dilemma.” According to Tumulty, “Every endangered member will be trying to figure out not only his or her own vote, but also which way colleagues are likely to go. This one is going to be so difficult to predict–right up until the very last minute.”

Five Thirty Eight’s poll reader extraordinaire Nate Silver points out that InTrade’s bettors set the bill’s odds for passage at just better than even — which has moved up “fairly significantly in the past 72 hours.” Silver examines what’s changed in the last several weeks, and decides: “That’s a lot of evidence to weigh. My head says yes — Pelosi will squeak this through — while my gut frankly says no. Either way, I’m not sure there’s a lot of arbitrage against that 52 percent number at Intrade, but I’d hesitate to call the bill a favorite to pass.”

Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar says she’s “all but certain” that a health overhaul bill will pass. Her reasoning? “Unless the president and Pelosi have signed a secret political suicide pact, they wouldn’t be doing this unless they were quite sure they could pull it off. ”

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Democratic leaders estimate they are short between 6-12 votes in the House, so “To convince these lawmakers, House leadership is preparing a whip operation described as “all hands on deck.” Pelosi and Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) will dispatch loyal lieutenants to help rub elbows and twist arms. Once the party settles on a final set of reconciliation changes, leaders in the labor community are set to launch a major campaign to help with the whipping, officials say.”

Slate’s Chris Beam explains how a Congressional whip actually works: “They count votes. The principle task of a party whip, formally known as ‘assistant party leader,’ is to keep track of the number of votes for and against a piece of legislation. They’re also responsible, along with the party’s leader, for “whipping up” support for a particular position.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein notes that a resigning Republican House member is delaying leaving his post so he can vote no on health reform, which means Pelosi still needs 217 votes to pass a bill.

But Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey thinks another scenario altogther may unfold: “The real nightmare scenario isn’t that the House might pass the Senate bill now, or in April. It’s that Democrats might get stymied now, and then pass the Senate bill after the midterms in late November, and allow Obama to sign it into law well after the time when voters have held them accountable for their radical agenda.”

Friday, March 5th, 2010

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

Irreconcilable Differences

Bloggers take in President Barack Obama’s speech urging the passage of the health reform bill, in part through budget reconciliation, by Easter. But there’s still vehement disagreement over the legislations’ substance.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll reacted to yesterday’s event, saying, “there is one huge difference between the Senate bill and what the President kept referring to as my/our proposal: the Senate bill actually exists. For all the talk in Washington about Democrats in the Senate using reconciliation to pass a final version of Obamacare, one key fact has been overlooked: no reconciliation bill exists. Not in the House. Not in the Senate. Nowhere. It simply has not yet been written, and there are plenty of reasons to believe it never will.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein emphasized that this speech seemed different than Obama’s previous presidential statements: “What’s important about this speech is that it didn’t leave any paths open. It attacked the Republican bills, the arguments for piecemeal reform, and the idea that procedural impediments are sufficient to excuse the further delay of a verdict. This is the end of the line.”

Critical Condition’s Jeffrey Anderson says Obama’s claims about what his health plan will do are false, and argues “In reality, here are the three main things that Obamacare would change about the current health system: One, it would reduce freedom. Two, it would raise costs. Three, it would ultimately reduce costs in the only way that a government-controlled system can: by rationing care.”

Cato’s Michael Cannon says Obama’s move to include health savings accounts in his new plan didn’t gain any Republican support, and “it may have cost him some Democratic support — or at least frayed the nerves of a few House Democrats.”

Elsewhere, Brad Wright of Wright on Health hosts the newest edition of Health Wonk Review, a biweekly compendium of health policy blogging, where he charts the cyber chatter surrounding key developments feeding into the health reform dynamic — everything from the fracas surrounding insurance premium hikes to an analysis of the good and bad ideas that emerged at the president’s health summit.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn looks at a new ad from a conservative group that urges Democrats to vote against a reform bill. Cohn thinks the add is “a vivid illustration of why changing votes is such a bad idea. Just read that script again. But, this time, stop after the first paragraph. That’s the ad conservatives will run against these members even if they change their votes. And it’s still devastating.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky fact-checks statements on abortion funding from Rep. Bart Stupak, who authored an amendment restricting funding of abortions in the health bills. Volsky says: “Stupak is just shifting the goal posts. First he complained about taxpayer funding for abortion and once Democrats strengthened the Senate language, he began arguing that private funds will not go towards abortion coverage. He simply can’t have it both ways.”

And Slate’s Timothy Noah created a ‘Mix-Up’ of health care statements from President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Tags: obama, reconciliation, speech
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Obama Interjects Again

President Barack Obama gave a speech this afternoon that some have deemed his “last, best chance to move forward.” But opponents of reform are not enthused with his effort to include a handful of GOP health care ideas.

Cato’s Michael Cannon, reacting to Obama’s insertion of some Republican ideas after last weeks’ summit, says, “Dropping a few Republican ideas into a government takeover of health care is like sterilizing the needle before a lethal injection: a nice thought, but the ultimate outcome is the same.”

Heritage’s Conn Carroll agrees with Cannon, writing: “Simply adjusting the magnitude of the existing proposals or adding so-called conservative provisions does not change this fundamental direction.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrisey doesn’t think adding a few GOP ideas is good politics either: “This looks like yet another miscalculation, a gambit that will keep Congress tied up on ObamaCare well into the spring and perhaps the summer.”

Critical Condition’s Grace-Marie Turner says, “The president is expected to ask the Senate to twist its rules to force its health-overhaul legislation through a process designed exclusively for budget and spending-related issues. These are desperate, hard-ball political tactics.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein interviews Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad about that process, known as budget reconciliation. Conrad rejects Republican concerns that using reconciliation is a break from precendent and points to a number of Republican uses of the tactic.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small profiles Alan Frumin, the current Senate parlamentarian, and looks at how both parties have been prepping to get their way in a reconciliation debate.

Open Congress’ Donny Shaw compiled a list of provisions that were rejected under reconciliation in past years.

And the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim reports that Ted Kaufman, D-Del., is the 34th senator to sign a letter in support of including a public option in a reconciliation bill.

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Tags: obama, reconciliation, start over
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Health Summit Still Reverberating

Bloggers continue to analyze the health care summit, while others look at what’s next.

The Heritage Foundation compiled a “four-minute guide” video to last week’s summit.

The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward reports that “President Obama has taken a new line of attack against Republicans to neutralize their argument that his reforms would pose a government takeover of the health-care sector, arguing subtly that the GOP is committed more to the insurance industry than they are limited government.”

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit links to videos of Obama’s weekly address and the Republican response from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. They both spoke about the health care bills.

Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar looks at comments from a North Carolina college student about why she opposes the health reform bills and says, “These are the ‘philosophical differences’ that Obama acknowledged at the summit. I think it is important to recognize that not only Republican politicians but a fair number of our fellow citizens share this point of view.”

Time’s Karen Tumulty surveys a New York Times article looking at the vote count in the House and declares, “I think a major health care bill is more likely than not to pass. After what [Speaker Nancy Pelosi] managed to get her caucus to do last year, I would never, ever bet against the Speaker on a vote. And she is looking pretty determined on this one.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a look at budget reconciliation, including use in the past on health issues: “The Children’s Health Insurance Program was created in reconciliation, and so too was COBRA. The law stating that hospitals who take Medicare and Medicaid money have to see all patients who walk into their emergency room was also passed in reconciliation…”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky looks at a proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to exclude Medicare from the budget reconciliation process and concludes, “But on the whole, this is really a cynical move (and highly unlikely, since any rule change would require 67 votes). Republicans have consistantly supported far larger cuts to the Medicare program than what Democrats are currently proposing and are always complaining that the Medicare “entitlement” program will bankrupt the nation.”

And The Incidental Economist’s Austin Frakt posts an analysis and graph visualing over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

Monday, March 1st, 2010

Tags: house, medicare advantage, obama, pelosi, reconciliation, senate, summit
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Picking Apart Obama’s Proposal

Bloggers were quick to react to President Barack Obama’s first official proposal for a health overhaul bill, presented in advance of Thursday’s health care ’summit’. Reactions range from nonplussed to concerns the government would be “fixing prices” to predictions of new political momentum to complete the health overhaul process.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn gives readers an overview of where things stand: “strictly speaking, [Obama isn't] introducing a health care plan at all. He is, instead, proposing a set of changes to the bill that the Senate passed in December. If both chambers pass these changes–and if the House passes the Senate bill–health care reform will become law.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky makes a helpful chart summarizing the differences between Obama’s proposal and the House and Senate overhaul bills.

Time’s Kate Pickert reports on the legislative steps that would need to take place in order for Democrats to pass a final bill: “Democrats are still miles from the finish line. House Democrats are not eager to pass the Senate bill and Republicans have promised to obstruct a reconciliation bill in the Senate. Asked on a conference call with reporters if the House and Senate leadership have signed off on the Obama plan, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the plan was ‘informed by our discussions with House and Senate leadership…but this is the President’s proposal.’ The thing is, the President can’t make laws by himself.”

Right leaning bloggers zeroed in on Obama’s proposal to limit health insurer rate increases, an idea not present in the House or Senate bills, and due in large part to recent rate-hike announcements of up to 39% in California.

Cato’s Michael Cannon thinks the rate regulation idea was rejected during President Bill Clinton’s reform push: “a key feature of that blueprint will be premium caps, a form of government price control that helped kill the Clinton health plan when even New Democrats rejected it.” Cannon continues, echoing the sentiments of many right-leaning commentators today: “This is not hope. This is not change. (Much less a game-changer.) It is, to pinch a phrase, a return to ‘the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis.’”

The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward interviews a Republican Senate leadership aide who reacts to the health insurer rate regulation portions, saying, “Wow, this is the biggest news of the week: even the White House is now admitting that their massive health spending bill won’t do anything about rising premiums.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein says Obama is taking a “sledgehammer” to one of his promises to consumers that they could keep their current insurance, if they like it. “The Senate bill has a measure to protect so-called ‘grandfathered plans,’ which would allow policy holders to maintain coverage in plans that may not abide by all of the requirements imposed on new individual plans offered on the government-run exchanges,” Klein writes. “But Obama’s new proposal changes all of that” by adding certain “consumer protections” to those plans. “the provision to allow people to keep their ‘grandfathered plans’ is rendered meaningless when the federal government is dictating what is in them.”

Critical Condition’s Tevi Troy also reacts to the insurer rate increase regulation, saying, “While I am no fan of high premiums, and I believe that Anthem did itself and the opponents of the Democratic bills no favors by its recent proposed rate hikes, flat out forbidding rate hikes will not solve the underlying problems we face.”

Insure Blog’s Henry Stern takes stock of the items and concludes: “If there’s any ‘good news,’ it’s that the so-called ‘Public Option’ (the not-so-stealthy means to gummint-run health care) is nowhere to be seen.”

However, some bloggers viewed the proposal as a potential step forward. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein thinks the proposal could be a game-changer, politically: “But if the changes to the underlying policies are modest, the impact on the politics will be tremendous. … The release of this plan marks the end of the Scott Brown election and the resumption of the health-care process.”

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Tags: bill, obama, summit
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Low Expectations For Public Plan Comeback

Bloggers are re-checking the public plan’s pulse after 20 Democratic senators signed a new letter in support of the measure but they don’t see much life.

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit, watching a video exchange between HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, thinks the buzz will amount to little: “now that I’ve watched Sebelius, I think the whole thing’s a lame bluff. Note well how she qualifies her reply to Maddow: Yeah, sure, we’re totally open to a public plan — so long as there’s a majority in the Senate that’ll go for it.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn thinks the politics are treacherous for efforts to include a public option: “At this point, it’s going to take a herculean effort by President Obama and the leadership to secure fifty votes even for a modest reconciliation bill, one that merely fixes some of the more egregious flaws in the bill the Senate finally passed. Adding a public option–something more conservative Democrats never liked in the first place–will make that task a lot harder.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, thinks adding a public option could invigorate the Democratic base, but says: “I’d still bet against the public option. For one thing, there’s sharp resistance to this idea in the White House. The administration has just spent weeks rebranding itself as a bipartisan outpost in a sea of bickering hacks. Resuscitating the most controversial element of the bill and running it through reconciliation looks less like reaching out and more like delivering a hard left cross to the opposition.”

Time’s Kate Pickert also says she “remains very skeptical that a final Democratic bill, even one passed via reconciliation, will include a public option.”

The Weekly Standard’s Gary Andres argues that Republicans could come out well in next week’s health care ’summit’ because public opinion of GOP health care ideas improve the more Republicans discuss them.

And John Goodman surveys the policy gaps between Democrats and Republicans and comes to a glum conclusion: “It’s hard to see how a gulf this wide can be bridged.”

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Tags: obama, public plan, sebelius
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Budget Day

Bloggers are reacting to President Barack Obama’s 2011 federal budget proposal relased today.

First, a post from the budget chief himself: Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag. Orszag calls on Congress to pass a final health overhaul bill in his budget post, saying, “Congress must now deliver on this promise of fiscally responsible health reform – the stakes are high, both for the millions of Americans who lack a stable source of health insurance coverage and for the fiscal well-being of the Nation itself.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein looks at the difference between OMB’s prediction last year and this year: “It turns out that in the budget it announced last February, the White House Office of Management and Budget projected cumulative deficits of $6.97 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019, but in the budget it announced today, the comparable number swelled to $9.09 trillion — or an increase of about $2.1 trillion.”

The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti thinks a health overhaul bill wouldn’t reduce the deficit, saying, “Even as his economic agenda failed to create jobs, President Obama spent a year negotiating a costly health care reform the public did not like under the guise of ‘deficit reduction.’ No question, the government’s health-care bills are driving long-term deficits out of the control (see Robert Samuelson’s column today here). But the claim that the Obama bill would cut the deficit is based on three faulty assumptions.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky says the budget “offers a short-term patch for cash-strapped public health care programs. The administration’s FY 2011 budget invests $25.5 billion into a 6-month extension of ‘the help that states got in last year’s economic stimulus bill with their Medicaid programs,’ increasing the federal contribution by 6.2%. States with higher unemployment rates would qualify for more aid.”

Heritage’s Conn Carroll is disappointed: “One might hope that given last year’s $1.4 trillion budget deficit was an all-time high and the President promised a spending ‘freeze’ in last week’s State of the Union, this budget might signal a change in direction from the White House. No such luck.”

The National Journal’s Marilyn Werber-Serafini notes that the budget focused “more on the economy than health reform,” and queries her experts: “How closely are they related, and what and how much needs to be done on health care to positively affect the economy?” Responders so far include Len Nichols and Uwe Reinhardt.

And the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says Americans should think differently about the federal budget: “Commentary on this budget will focus on Obama and ‘his’ deficits, but the reality is that the vast majority of this budget is ours, and the story it tells is only about Obama on the margins.”

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Tags: budget, obama, omb, spending
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

The Future of Reform

Bloggers are trying to figure out what’s next for health overhaul legislation, with little success.

Time’s Kate Pickert thinks there could be “momentum building” to resuscitate the Democrats’ efforts. She looks at President Barack Obama’s comments from a speech in Tampa, Fla. yesterday and says, “Tipping point? No. But is there definite life there? Yes.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says “Rahm Emanuel makes me very pessimistic about health-care reform.” He looks a New York Times article suggesting the administration may wait to do more on a health overhaul bill until after addressing jobs and financial reform. He continues: “Is Emanuel really suggesting that he expects Congress to return to health-care reform in the summer before the election? Forgetting whether there’s political will at that point, there’s no personnel: Everyone is home campaigning.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has a skeptical take on an interview with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who said that Senate Democrats are ready to make a deal using reconciliation: “What’s odd about this is that both Landrieu and Mark Pryor made it sound this morning like the bill was in coma and on the verge of death. Any reason to believe them instead of Kyl? Well, Kyl’s claim could simply be a feint aimed at goosing conservatives into launching a hopefully final salvo against the bill and finishing it off.”

The New Republic’s Jeff Davis gives a detailed explanation of exactly how the Senate would use a budget reconcilation process to keep amending the bill.

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky notes that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., may be looking ahead and wants to propose using the jobs bill to keep the increased federal contribution to the states for Medicaid from the stimulus bill. However, Volksy says, “it’s not clear that Rockefeller’s proposal will garner significant Congressional support.”

However, Heritage’s Margeurite Higgins isn’t sure the bill is dead, saying Obama’s health care “agenda is stalled, but still alive. But there is a huge change.” Higgins says public support for the Congressional health care bills contiunes to dwindle, looking at a new Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll from earlier this month.

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Tags: bills, house, obama, public opinion, reform, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Cautious Reactions To The State Of The Union

Health reform spectators collectively held their breaths to see what signals President Barack Obama would send during his first official State of the Union address Wednesday. According to Politico’s Chris Frates, “In case it wasn’t evident yet, President Obama made it crystal clear yesterday: passing health reform is no longer his top priority.”

Bloggers themselves tried to intuit whether Obama’s words meant he wanted to salvage the health overhaul bills before Congress, or whether he was ready to move on.

First, a fact-check from PolitiFact.com of Obama’s numerous statements from his address: they found a mixed bag of “true,” “half true,” and “full flop” claims.

Bob Laszewski thinks Obama was faced with a fork in the road and “he seems to be taking both forks.” He continues, “In the wake of the President’s State of the Union Address, we have no better idea just where he wants to lead his party, the entire Congress, or the country on health care reform.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn begins his response with the question on many minds today: “If you follow health care reform, you probably want to know if President Obama saved health care reform with his State of the Union address. The answer is no.” Cohn checks in with several Capitol Hill sources who seem generally pleased and concludes, “Obama got it right tonight. But reform’s fate depends on whether he gets it right tomorrow, too.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein thinks Obama’s words on health care indicated the issue was “Still important, yes, and still worth fighting for — but one priority amid a laundry list of goals that typically make up State of the Union speeches.”

The Corner’s James Capretta writes, “On health care, he offered nothing new… And so what does the president now propose to do to get his signature initiative out of the political ditch it’s in? Nothing — which means it will remain there.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein thinks the next steps are more important than the speech itself: “I expect Obama’s poll numbers will be up for a few days, but if he wants them to remain there, he needs events to bear out his narrative. And that starts with passing the health-care reform bill.”

Health Beat Blog’s Maggie Mahar says “I had hoped that the president would signal to Democrats that he expected them to come together: the easiest and surest way to pass the legislation would be if the House voted for the Senate bill. But the president did not say this.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey notes that while next steps on the Democrats’ bills remain up in the air, “Republicans have an opportunity to make the free-market case of dismantling barriers to interstate competition, reducing the role of third-payers in the system, and creating real pricing pressures that drive drown actual costs rather than reimbursements.” He looks at news that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is reintroducing a GOP health overhaul bill from the summer.

KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics: