Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘obama’

Many Flavors Of A Public Plan

Developments this week are “far from the last episode of ‘As the Public Option Turns.’” Politico Pulse’s Chris Frates explains:

It’s dead. It’s alive. It’s robust, state-based and opt-out. It’s the public option in all its varied forms. And the flavor this week is the opt-out, a national public insurance plan that would allow states to opt out of participating. The proposal got a huge boost yesterday when word spread that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was inclined to include it in the Senate bill he will take to the floor. And while the news is important because it signals that the public option — left for dead after the August recess — is a contender again, yesterday’s breathless speculation on its bright future is a bit premature.

Jacob Hacker, widely credited as the originator of the public plan idea, comes out against a “trigger” idea on the New Republic’s The Treatment. Hacker says, “In short, we cannot wait for a public plan—and one of the biggest problems with a trigger is that it virtually guarantees we will have to.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein outlines scenarios in the House, which appears ready to present three different ‘public plan’ “flavors”:

The House of Representatives is readying itself to release three delicious flavors of health-care reform. One of the bills will have a public option trigger. Another will have a level-playing field proposal. And the third will have the Hardy’s Thickburger of public options: Medicare rates plus 5 percent, national, the whole deal. They’re even forming a commission of independent experts to build a new formula that addresses the concerns of rural and Pacific Coast members, both of whom feel that Medicare underpays their hospitals.

It doesn’t matter to James Capretta which version the House goes with. He blasts House Dems’ strategy to pass a tweaked bill, frustrated that nothing has been presented for public viewing:

If House leaders decide to go public with CBO’s apparent bottom line, CBO really should be obligated to go public with the entire analysis to ensure no misunderstanding. Otherwise CBO’s findings can be distorted. House Democrats are trying to build momentum again toward passage by creating the impression they have found a painless way to turn their budget-busting bill from July into one that actually cuts the deficit. It’s CBO’s job to make sure no one gets away with this kind of phony free-lunch argument. If in fact a new version of the House bill reduces the federal budget deficit over two decades, someone is paying. Who? Here’s betting that’s it’s the American middle class. And as soon as that becomes known, the new updated House bill is likely to become just as unpopular as the now dead and buried old one.

Is some of the opposition to Dems’ plans floundering? Politico’s Ben Smith says insurers are failing in their efforts to get positive publicity for new reports on the cost of health overhaul bills: “What might have in another era been a clean shot — for AHIP, a leak to the Washington Post; today, to another paper; instead seems to be sending these documents as orphans into a media universe that views them, appropriately, as arguments for one side, rather than revelatory statements of fact, and where left-leaning wonks are primed to tear them apart.”

Insure Blog’s Bob Vineyard calls President Obama “a finger wagging President” while mulling over the health overhaul debate and says, “The politicians promise to make health care and health insurance more affordable. Problem is, the way they are going about it won’t accomplish either. So now both sides, politicians and health insurance companies, are pointing fingers saying the other side lied. If either side really knows the truth, they aren’t telling it.”

Think Progress’ Matthew Yglesias reviews comments from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., (highlighed by the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen) that some people like the idea of a public plan option because they think it would mean “free health care.” Yglesias concludes: “I think maybe she doesn’t understand what’s being proposed and thinks that liberals are proposing to create an additional spending commitment. In reality, adding a public option would make the Finance bill cheaper and not involve any additional taxpayer subsidies.”

Reason’s Ronald Bailey takes the former point to the extreme — saying “no one knows anything in health care.” His solution? “Competition in markets tends to lower prices and improve quality over time. It can do so in health care markets as well.”

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

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

Looking for More

Bloggers continue to focus on the various facets of the health overhaul debate, in particular, that the Finance Committee bill needs additional funding.

Bob Laszewski pounds away at the Finance Committee bill, which he argues could “make access even more problematic” because of insufficient subsidies for middle-income families in the context of a weakened individual mandate. Laszewski also takes time to blast AHIP for bad PR strategy, saying, “I swear, if AHIP issued a press release on a crystal clear day telling DC the sun was shining no one would believe them.”

Heritage’s Brian Darling is upset with reports that the health overhaul bills are being crafted “in secret:” “Democracy does not begin and end on Election Day for the American people. Whether you are for or against Obamacare, we the people deserve an opportunity to read, digest and understand the most important health care legislation to be debated in the United States Senate in our lifetime. The American people relied upon the promise of the Obama Administration and the leadership in Congress to be open and transparent, therefore it is time to stop the closed door negotiations and allow the American people to participate in the democratic process.”

Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar argues that insurers are “running scared” because “the public sector option is still alive.” With this point, she says she means “Medicare E (Medicare for everyone)” which she describes as “a public option for patients under 65, run by the federal government. The scent of real competition is what has insurers on the run.”

Perhaps the public option is still breathing, but according to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, not because of much help from President Obama: “Is this leadership? It’s a passive-aggressive approach that leaves both progressives and moderates in Obama’s own party twisting in the wind. Obama wants his advisers to take all of the flak from progressive action groups that will result from a retreat on government-run health insurance, but doesn’t have the stomach to take that hit himself. The end result is confusion among legislators on Capitol Hill, and further entrenchment on either side of the issue.”

The New Republic’s staff editorial argues that lawmakers’ “desire to expand health insurance coverage exceeds their willingness to pay for it,” and they need to find more money for the health bills but are running into roadblocks:

With so many ways to raise revenue, finding some combination capable of winning majorities in both chambers would seem simple. It isn’t. Liberals don’t like the insurance excise tax, in no small part because unions don’t want it affecting older workers who won generous benefits in past collective bargaining agreements. Centrists want no part of taxes outside the health care system, particularly those that target the wealthy. And neither group seems seriously interested in extracting more concessions from the health care industry, which may have a little something to do with the fact that it bankrolls so many political campaigns.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein uses an answer from Sen. Olympia Snowe to take a big picture look at health reform efforts this year, arguing, “We have a conservative system of government (in that it’s very hard to change the status quo), and [Democratic lawmakers] designed health-care reform to be sensitive to that fact.”

Mark Trahant looks at another issue in the health overhaul debate: an exemption for Indian Americans to the requirement to purchase insurance. According to Trahant, “But even if you agree with the exemption – as I do – there remains another issue to resolve, the money. Unless health care reform substantially improves the funding stream for the Indian health care delivery system, then the individual exemption is only a guarantee of permanent disparity.”

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Tags: ahip, cost, disparities, finance committee, insurers, obama, public option, public plan
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Still Chewing Over the Baucus Bill

Bloggers just can’t get enough of the Senate Finance Committee health bill…

Bob Laszewski says that “we could be on our way to devastating the health insurance risk pool” with the Baucus bill “all but gutting” fines for not buying insurance, which may result in not enough healthy or young people buying policies to help stabilize the risk.

Cato’s Michael Cannon says a “fail-safe” inserted into the Finance bill that would automatically cut the cost of the bill should it increase the deficit would be ineffective since “automatic spending cuts never work because today’s Congress cannot bind future Congresses.”

Keith Hennessey writes, “numbers matter,” and spotlights “important numbers and economic forces in these bills that are receiving insufficient attention.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein points out a key difference between reform in 1994 and 2009: “Health-care reform never came to a vote. No one ever had to vote for it or against it. Nor did it ever face down a filibuster. It collapsed long before any procedural impediments were put in its way. This year, something would have to change very drastically for health-care reform to collapse before a vote. That means the few swing votes are going to have to face the pressure of standing in the way of the Democratic Party’s top priority since the days of Harry Truman.”

The Huffington Post broke a story Thursday afternoon that’s been getting a lot of attention — according to Sam Stein, “Senate Democrats have begun discussions on a compromise approach to health care reform that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program.” The New Republic’s Suzy Khimm responds, “the fact that we’ve moved from discussing the viability of having a bill at all to trying to hammer out the details is a promising sign overall.”

On AEI’s Enterprise Blog, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., says “President Obama has contradicted a number of assurances he gave to the American people,” listing six in particular.

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum looks at why the U.S. health care system costs so much more than other countries:

We can jabber all we want about incentives and greed and systemic waste, but the bottom line is that if we want to do anything more than nip around the edges, we’d have to pay doctors and nurses less, pay pharmaceutical companies less, pay insurance companies less (or get rid of them entirely), pay hospitals less, and pay device makers less. That’s a lot of very rich and powerful interests who will fight to the death to prevent any serious cost cutting, and it’s why Obama and the Democrats in Congress have largely chosen to buy them off instead.

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Tags: baucus, costs, finance committee, obama
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: finance committee, gop, obama, public opinion
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

The Morning After…

The Senate Finance Committee finally completed its marathon markup of the health overhaul bill late last night and will reconvene next week to vote on the measure. This backdrop has dominated health policy commentary for almost a month, and the reaction from liberals and conseratives has been less than positive (for different reasons, as we’ve documented all week.)

MSNBC’s First Read hypothesizes about the delay until next week’s vote: “And so the lobbying for Senator Olympia Snowe begins again. With the Finance Committee done considering amendments, Chairman Max Baucus decided to wait until next week to hold the final vote. Part of the delay is to get the Congressional Budget Office to re-score this final bill with the marked-up amendments.”

Yesterday the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics, two orgs dedicated to exposing conficts of interest in politics, released a new study that identifies “contribution clusters” — money flowing from health care lobbyists and industry groups to lawmakers in Congress. The study examined contributions to all members of the House and Senate.

According to the analysis, Baucus was “one of the biggest beneficiaries of this one-two punch from lobbyists and the interests they represent.” Researchers then compiled the info graphically — see the “wheel of health care contributions” for Baucus, below. The study rated Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. first in contributions, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., second and Baucus third. (H/t, Washington Post’s Capitol Briefing.)

Zachary Cooper, on the Altarum Institute’s blog, wants the Finance Committee example to be instructive: “My hope is that as a result of seeing precisely what conciliation and trepidation look like in print, his proposal will inspire Democrats and willing Republicans alike to become more bold.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein discusses an amendment from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., that would give states major flexibility with reform. Klein says it appears the amendment may allow states to enact a single-payer system, should they chose, and continues, “It’s not impossible to imagine a liberal state using the waiver to introduce some mega-public plan that’s a lot stronger than what’s currently on the table and can be used as a demonstration project for other states.”

The American Spectator’s Doug Bandlow is looking beyond the Finance Committee and offers a counter-intuitive take on the aftermath should a health overhaul bill pass: “The common assumption is that it would be devastating for President Barack Obama and the Democrats if they don’t pass something on health care. But what if they win and pass something that is deeply unpopular?”

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Tags: baucus, finance committee, industry, lobbying, lobbyists, obama, snowe, wyden
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Subdued Monday

Monday finds commentators somewhat subdued as they continue to follow developments in the health overhaul debate in Washington. As the people in the know stay focused on the hottest political show in town, others are offering a different kind of analysis. Exhibit A – some dueling health reform songs:

Here’s Paul Hipp, with a tongue-in-cheek song about the World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s best health care systems — the U.S. comes in at #37. Some lyrics:

“We’re Number 37
We’re the USA
The big Number 37
And we want to keep it that way
Be sure to bring the kids
All of the boys and girls
Because the #1 health care system in the world.

Is in France???”

And YouTube user BornTwyce parodied Don McClean’s American Pie with a song called “The Day Obamacare Died:”

“A long, long time ago
I can still remember
How, the protests used to make me smile
Cause I knew we could ram it thru
Before they ever had a clue
Then maybe they’d shut-up for a while
But the protests grew and made me shiver
Pelosi and Reid could not deliver
Now our push for health care has to wait
Til September [Spoken: or October or next year]
I cant remember if I cried
When I heard the right had organized”

Over in the wonkosphere, a few bloggers focused on the economics of health insurance:

Bob Laszewski digs into the Senate Finance Committee’s proposal to tax insurers offering plans over a certain dollar value and says the tax will be passed to consumers: “At any rate, whatever the tax, it will be passed through to those who pay the premiums. This is not a theoretical exercise. Taxes like this are what we call a premium load. You can load these costs as long as there are premiums available to load—loadings available.”

Insure Blog’s Bob Vineyard looks at a new health insurance regulations in Maryland and declares, “This effectively closes the door for new, individual health insurance policies in Maryland until further notice.”

And Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky blogs about a debate between former presidential candidate and DNC Chair Howard Dean and Karl R0ve, adviser to President George W. Bush. Describing contention about Medicare’s administrative costs, Volsky writes:

But, one man’s ‘excess overhead’ is another man’s profit and the public industry’s ability to provide care more efficiently is precisely the reason why private insurers and Karl Rove — who actually criticized the President for vilifying private health insurers in his address — are afraid of competing with an efficient Medicare-like public option.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey lambast’s the Washington Post/ABC News’ statistical sampling for their latest public opinion poll on President Obama’s speech and health reform and concludes:

Given the fact that Obama continues to lose ground even in skewed samples of all adults, it means that he’s getting clobbered among likely voters. The speech didn’t even stop Obama’s slide. At best, it may have slowed his descent a little. That’s not nearly good enough, and it shows that the more Obama appears on TV to angrily repeat the same old slogans, the less people care what he has to say.

Elsewhere, former Speaker Newt Gingrich on AEI’s blog suggests three ways for Obama to “prove” he is serious about bipartisanship: include an amendment requiring valid identification to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving services, reduce fraud and set a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

But The New Yorker’s Hedrik Hertzberg disagrees with Gingrich, examining the president’s strategy to pass a health overhaul bill in light of intense conservative activist opposition and says:

Bipartisanship is a fine sentiment and an appealing tactic, but where health care is concerned it was never a great idea. The boorish South Carolina Republican who shouted “You lie!” at the President after he said, truthfully, that reform “would not apply to those who are here illegally” did the public weal a favor by underlining bipartisanship’s futility. A bill that reflects a necessary compromise among Democrats is bound to be stronger than one that reflects an unnecessary compromise between Democrats and Republicans. And that’s no lie.

And finally, another health policy and politics blog has arrived on the scene — Politico has expanded the Politico Pulse feature to be updated throughout the day, blog-style, here.

Monday, September 14th, 2009

Tags: insurance, obama
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:

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: gop, obama, reform
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Polls and Pols: September Begins

Congress is back, the Senate Finance Committee appears on the verge of releasing a bill and Obama is set to give a major address Wednesday night. Fall’s hectic start is providing bloggers with plenty of fodder.

First, a new public opinion poll sets the stage. Gallup found that Americans are “no less divided on healthcare reform today” than before the start of the tumultuous August recess:

The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent interprets the poll’s result showing that about a quarter of voters remain undecided about whether they want their member of Congress to vote for the Democratic health reform proposals. Sargent notes:

The persistently high number of undecideds is yet another sign that Obama’s failure to forcefully lay down his bottom line on health care early on may have been a disastrous mistake. On the other hand, it may mean that many want to hear more from the president before making up their minds, perhaps giving Obama a chance to turn things around. It’s another reminder that the stakes of his big speech tomorrow just couldn’t be higher.

Politico’s Glenn Thrush (in a post titled “Not so fired up, not so ready to go”) also comments on the Gallup poll and points out that reform supporters are 20% less likely than opponents to cite their congressperson’s health care vote as a “major factor” for their vote in the 2010 election. Thrush concludes: “Obama, who used to have the most motivated troops in any battle, seems to be leading the French army, circa June ‘40, intensity-wise, into the reform fight.”

(more…)

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Tags: clinton, obama, public opinion, reform
Posted in Blog Watch | No Comments »

Retail Politics

Right-leaning bloggers are going to their ideological roots today to express their views on health policy and Democratic health overhaul proposals.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll says the best policy approach to address problems in the health care system is consumer driven health care, and lists “six key principles of reform that will bring sanity to our nation’s health care system,” which include individuals buying their own health insurance and “transparent” pricing.

Ed Morrissey looks at a new study on retail clinics in Minnesota and says private sector health services work. He concludes, “If we want to reform care, bend the cost curve downward, and promote supply in the health-care industry, we need to learn the lesson from retail health clinics. The top-down reform proposed by Congress threatens to stop real reform and amplify everything that’s currently wrong with the system.”

A long interview in The National Review with Cato’s Michael Cannon brings out the libertarian perspective on policy. A key statment: “Again, when government compels people to purchase health insurance and dictates what they purchase, costs will climb and quality will stagnate. Free markets will not provide universal health-insurance coverage. And that’s okay, because free markets will reduce unmet need by making medical care more affordable — which also makes it easier to meet what need remains.”

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are focused what President Obama might say in his “major” address to Congress next week.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein did some digging and reports that there are two groups vying for the upperhand: “The administration is going to put a plan down on paper. The question is what it will say. Conversations with a number of White House officials make it clear that, at this point, even they don’t know. The argument was raging as recently as last night, and appears to have hardened into two main camps. Both camps agree that the cost of the bill has to come down. The question is how much, and what can be sacrificed.”

The buzz is that the cost will come down to $700 billion over 10 years, instead of $1 trillion. The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn mulls over the implications of lowering a bill. He writes, “Predictably, the compromises a $700 billion bill require are a lot more severe than the compromises in a $1 trillion bill.”

Lastly, the newest edition of Health Wonk Review is up at the Ludicus Project.

It’s chock full of links to articles and reports and ends with a referral to Mad Kane’s limerick:

Dear Obama, the GOP’s clear:
Won’t support any health reform. Hear?
You can whittle the bill
Down to bupkis — you still
Won’t get votes. Yes they’ve duped you, I fear.

Your naivety’s hurting our cause.
And so how about taking a pause?
Work with Dems on the Hill
To create a fresh bill
That has nary a GOP clause.

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

Tags: chdc, consumers, costs, obama
Posted in Blog Watch | No Comments »

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.”

KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics: