Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘pelosi’

Deeming Whether To Pass

Bloggers are focused on an obscure House of Representatives rule known as “Deem and Pass“ (also called the “Slaughter Solution” after Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter or the “self-executing” rule) that would theoretically allow Democrats to pass the Senate bill without voting on it.

TPMDC’s Christina Bellatoni reports that House Democrats are being instructed to remain mum: “Rank-and-file members are being told not to engage with Republicans on debates about process. Democratic leadership sent members a memo obtained by TPMDC warning that procedural tactics are “inside baseball” and defending against them won’t help them politically”.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein critiques comments from House Majority Whip James Clyburn on the “Slaughter Solution”: “For one thing, yes, a health care bill passed the Senate with 60 votes, and a health care bill passed the House with 220 votes. But they’re two different bills, and the same exact bill has to pass both chambers to be signed into law.”

Reason’s Peter Suderman isn’t impressed with the strategy’s politics: “In other words, legislators will still have to cast a vote for the passage of the original Senate bill. And what’s more, they’ll do so using a complicated procedure that makes it look as if they are trying to hide their votes. Politically, this seems like a far worse option, especially considering how much negative attention has already been paid to the deal-making, gimmicks, and procedural complexities of the health reform process.”

Cato’s Michael Cannon asks if the House passes the bill using tactic, “are we under any obligation to obey it? The answer may be no.” Cannon points to a WSJ op-ed by a former federal circuit court judge, who argued “passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein responds to criticism of the rule and calls for a change:

Congress needs to decide how the place is going to be run and then rewrite the rulebook so that it actually works that way. … Unprecedented use of the filibuster will trigger unprecedented reliance on reconciliation. Unprecedented gridlock in the Senate will lead to unprecedented efforts by the House to protect itself from Senate failure. But you can’t pick and choose. Either unprecedented use of the rules is a problem or it isn’t. But if it is, then you have to be upset about the filibuster. And if it isn’t, then you can’t be upset when the rules are manipulated by both sides. Congress can work by the letter of its laws or by the spirit of their intent, but it’s got to be one or the other.

But The Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Slaughter signed amicus briefs to the District Court lawsuit challenging the use of the “deem and pass” rule in 2005. Tapscott concludes times are different than 2005, saying, “to place the American private health care system under government control — effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy — that has never been done before.”

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Tags: deem and pass, house, pelosi, slaughter, votes
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Kicking Off A Busy Week

The week opened with bloggers critiquing the Democrats’ strategy to pass a health overhaul bill sometime this week.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small has a day-by-day time line to help track events.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn wonders, “What’s been taking so long?” According to Cohn, “The broad outlines of the eventual House-Senate compromise on health care reform have been clear for a while now. But nailing down the details isn’t easy, as the excerpt above suggests. And it’s particularly difficult because lawmakers don’t yet know what the Senate parliamentarian will rule outside the bounds of reconciliation. Throw in the need to get acceptable Congressional Budget Office estimates, and you can see why this process has taken as long as it has.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein writes, “Shortly before midnight on Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health care bill that will start the process of reconciliation — but don’t let that fool you, it’s not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes you’ve been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this is just the ’shell’ bill — the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on health care.”

Although the action today was in the House Budget Committee, the National Journal Online’s Robert Costa says the House Rules Committee “is where the real reconciliation package will be hammered out, probably later this week.” Costa interviews the top Republican on the Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier of California, who said, ” ‘Our committee’s meeting won’t be the fait accompli…The real fait accompli will be when the bill is scheduled for a vote on the floor. I’m convinced that [Democrats] will pretty much get it done if they can get it there. Having been in that position before, I’m sure they will roll the dice if they’re three or four votes short.’”

TPMDC’s Brian Beutler reports from a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said, “‘Time is important for us here, because this city is the city of the perishable and every special interest group out there who doesn’t want this to pass–including the entire Republican party–benefits from any delay,’ Pelosi told those in attendance. ‘Delay is our enemy.’”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein explains, “Pelosi doesn’t have votes for the Senate bill without the reconciliation package. But the Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation package can be signed into law. That removed Pelosi’s favored option of passing the reconciliation fixes before passing the Senate bill. So now the House will vote on reconciliation explicitly and the Senate bill implicitly, which is politically easier, even though the effect is not any different than if Congress were to pass the Senate bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after. This is all about plausible deniability for House members who don’t want to vote for the Senate bill, although I doubt many voters will find the denials plausible.”

And Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey reacts to news that the White House may change its stance on special deals for individual states in the reform bills, saying, “In case you want to play The Price is Right with Bob Baracker, here are the new rules. Single state deals are verboten, so no Cornhusker Kickback for you. If two states get together to demand special deals, well, come on down!”

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Tags: budget, house, pelosi, reconciliation, rules, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Talking Strategy

Bloggers are trying to keep up with rapidly shifting strategy options under consideration to pass a final health overhaul bill.

The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti thinks Democrats are “making one of the biggest political gambles in American history. They’re betting that overhauling one-sixth of the American economy against the public’s wishes and by a partisan vote is going to pay off in the end. They have doubled down, and are hoping the house busts.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn details a Democratic memo that lays out a timeline for passing reform: “The gist is pretty simple: The House takes up the Senate bill and passed it by March 19. A few days later it passes a reconciliation bill and sends it over to the Senate, which starts the voting process on March 26.” Cohn warns that schedules “remain in flux” and the GOP has the option to offer endless amendments during a reconciliation process, even though the debate time is limited.

But The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that there might be a way around endless votes: “Two experts in the arcane rules of the Senate said on Monday that, as president of the Senate, Biden has the capacity not just to overrule any ruling that the parliamentarian may make but also to cut off efforts by Republicans to offer unlimited amendments.”

Keith Hennessey lists seven challenges Democratic leaders would face by following a “two bill strategy,” including the sequence of votes (House or Senate first?) and a “voterama” where senators will have to vote up or down on proposed amendments.

Heritage’s Conn Carrol thinks a House passage is still up in the air, saying Speaker Pelsoi doesn’t currently have enough votes for reform, and “if you were watching the television yesterday it quickly became apparent that the leadership in the House has no idea how they are going to get them.”

Critical Condition’s Jim Capretta argues that Democrats can pass a smaller bill, despite talking points that stress the opposite. Capretta continues, “Still, the very existence of the Obama team’s fallback plan should embolden those Democrats who are now resisting their leadership’s pressure to take up the full Obamacare package in coming weeks and pass it.

And The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a thorough look at claims from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., that the health care porposals won’t control rising health costs or reduce the deficit. Klein says, “before we dive so deep into the weeds that we’re seeing earthworms, here’s the basic conclusion: Ryan’s critique scores some clean points and also deploys a couple of dirty tricks, but it doesn’t damage the bill’s claim to reduce deficits and doesn’t even engage whether the bill controls costs.”

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Tags: house, pelosi, plan b, reconciliation, senate
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

Panic After Pelosi

Democrats are still in panic mode as rumors fly about next steps in their marathon attempt to reform health care. The disarray continued after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that, “In its present form, without change, I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, reacting to the news, proclaims, “We’re probably looking more at a Square One approach, and this time the Obama administration may try to draft key Republicans into the talks in order to get bipartisan cover. Either way, it’s an ignominious defeat for Obama and Pelosi, whose radical approach and ‘I won’ attitude finally caught up with them.”

Josh Marshall, founder of Talking Points Memo and its reporting enterprises, is pessimistic: “In other words, plug pulled. Health care reform over.”

Ezra Klein thinks Pelosi’s comments were taken somewhat out of context, saying, “It reads more like she’s arguing the Senate bill will need to be changed in order to pass, which is a pretty normal stance right now.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein looks at House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s comments after Pelosi, and says, “So it’s unclear from his comments whether it’s still a theoretical possibility that Democrats may try to have the House pass the Senate bill and use reconciliation to modify it.” Klein notes, however, that “passing a reconciliation bill isn’t as easy as it sounds,” because of the complicated procedures it entails, including writing a whole new bill.

In terms of next steps, Bob Laszewski cautions, “The problem with bipartisanship now is that the Republican base is not about to let any of their own Senators do anything to take the Dems off the political meat hook they are now dangling from.” Laszewski points to one of his posts from the day after the 2008 presidential election and reaffirms that a “modest bipartisan bill” is still possible — if legislators “take the road less traveled.”

Keith Hennessey says, “Like a famous physics cat, the health care bill is in a state of quantum uncertainty,” and provides a table estimating the chances of various strategies.

NPR’s Julie Rovner asks if Democrats are “drawing the wrong conclusion” from the Massachusetts Senate vote. She interviews public opinion expert Robert Blendon to make the case: “Thus, he says, what voters reacted to was not what the bills would do, but how they would be paid for. Which doesn’t mean lawmakers in Washington struggling to salvage their health bills don’t still have a problem. It just may be a different problem than the one they think they have.”

Elsewhere, some are blaming President Barack Obama.

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan is posting emails from readers — who are both giving up on and keeping the faith in Obama.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn laments Obama’s lack of reassurance thus far following Scott Brown’s election to the Senate: “If health care reform is to be salvaged–and, I’ll be honest, I’m not terribly optimistic right now–it will take something more. It’s going to take the president showing the resolve and leadership that got him elected. The last 36 hours have made me doubt that he will. But, lord knows, he’s proven me wrong before. Maybe he’ll do it again.”

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman takes the frustration even further: “But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.”

And The National Journal’s Marilyn Werber-Serafini asks her experts, “should Congress scrap health care reform or work on a skinny bipartisan bill?” Responders so far include Tom Miller, Jason Rosenbaum, Kenneth Thorpe and Grace-Marie Turner.

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Tags: massachusetts senate, pelosi, reconciliation
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: abortion, house bill, pelosi, reform, stupak
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Reaction to House Bill Vote

In our roundup of bloggers’ reactions the House vote to pass their health overhaul bill, conservatives speculate whether this is “the high water mark” and liberals take a moment to consider the historical significance.

Heritage’s Bob Moffitt and Nina Owcharenko: “The health care bill passed by the House tonight took another step towards transferring power over personal health care decisions from individuals to bureaucrats in Washington. The Republican alternative was a good strong first step of targeted reforms that are necessary to improve health care financing and delivery.”
The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Health-care reform passed the House, quite literally, at the eleventh hour. It passed with a slim, two-vote margin. But it passed. That is more than has ever happened before. More than Truman or Nixon or Carter or Clinton managed. More than Rayburn or O’Neill or Gingrich managed. It is success, at least for this stage in the process. It is history, even, though it’s hard to sense the importance of the moment when you watch members of Congress spend the day squabbling over the true meaning of the word freedom.”
Cato’s Michael Tanner: “The fat lady hasn’t even started to warm up yet. The narrow 220-215 victory in the House on Saturday night was a step forward on the road to a government takeover of the health care system. But as close and dramatic as that vote was, that was the easy part. The Senate must still pass its version of reform—which will not be the bill that just passed the House. Nancy Pelosi was, after all, able to lose the votes of 39 moderate Democrats. Harry Reid cannot afford to lose even one.”
Families USA’s Ron Pollack: “It was a moment to cherish. Long in the making, this victory represents a major step toward the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Those who were watching the vote on television saw the House erupt in celebration. What they could not see was the cheering in the homes of the activists and ordinary Americans who worked tirelessly to achieve this historic vote.”
Sally Pipes on Critical Condition: “Following the Republican gubernatorial wins last week in Virginia and New Jersey, it seems clear that there is a backlash against the Democrats and their plan to put government in charge of our health care. The Republicans’ plan to take back the House in 2010 is underway. The health-care reform plans as proposed by the House and Senate must be slowed down and ultimately stopped. As Yogi Berra says ‘The ball game is not over till it’s over.’”
The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen: “As for the bigger picture, there’s quite a bit of work to do before reform becomes law, but it’s worth pausing to appreciate the historic significance of last night’s accomplishment. A lot of presidents have pushed health care reform initiatives before this year, and a lot of lawmakers have tried to get to this point. When it comes to domestic policy legislation, health care reform has been something of a holy grail — but before nine hours ago, the House had never even voted on, better yet passed, a bill of this significance.And yet, here we are.”
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey: “We always thought the fight was in the Senate, so the only real surprise yesterday was how weak Pelosi actually was on ObamaCare. Our focus now has to shift to those red-state Senators who will have to explain to voters their potential support of a bill that imposes unconstitutional mandates and trillions of dollars in new costs on a government that can’t pay its bills now. And in this case, we’ll only need two of them to stop the runaway tyranny of the Democratic agenda.”
The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn: “Now is a moment to appreciate what has taken place. The House has passed what is arguably the most significant piece of domestic policy legislation in a generation. Dramatic or not, it qualifies as history.”
The American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “House Democrats just narrowly passed their health care legislation, by a margin of 220 to 215, with 39 Democrats voting against it, and just one Republican — Louisiana’s Joseph Cao — voting in favor. Obviously, this is an historic victory for Democrats as it’s the first time that a health care bill of this magnitude has made it this far. Passing it in the House gives it momentum going into the Senate. And also, in a larger sense, Democrats have proven once again that no matter how messy the daily grind may look, they’ve eventually been able to use their overwhelming majority to keep moving the health care ball down field.”

Monday, November 9th, 2009

Tags: cost, house, pelosi, reform
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: abortion, cost, doc fix, house bill, immigration, mandate, medicare, pelosi
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: boehner, gop, house bill, pelosi
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

A Rush To Dissect The House Bill

The House unveiled its final health overhaul bill this morning, presenting anxious Beltway observers with almost 2,000 pages to digest.

Some bloggers quickly went to work dissecting the bill, pointing out their least favorite provisions or looking for differences that remain with the other chamber. Others are taking in the moment.

Critical Condition’s Mark Hemingway catalogues responses from GOP lawmakers, including Minority Leader John Boehner, who says the bill is “clearly designed for government takeover of our system.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has 10 reasons that Republicans should support the bill (though only one GOP senator has so far), framing in an “Republicans asked for, Republicans got” style. One example:

1. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – DEFICIT NEUTRAL BILL: “Do the American people believe that this almost 2,000 page bill won’t add to the deficit?” [Rep. Eric Cantor, 10/29/2009]

HOUSE BILL – DEFICIT NEUTRAL BILL: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill costs $894 billion over 10 years and actually reduces the deficit by $30 billion and continues to reduce the deficit over the second 10 years.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey quips, “Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic Caucus will unveil their version of ObamaCare this morning, and the New York Times reports some significant changes made in the last few days. First, the ‘public option,’ which had changed to the quasi-Orwellian name of ‘competitive option,’ now goes the full 1984 to the ‘consumer option.’”

Heritage’s Marguerite Higgins writes, “As we scour through this 1,990-page monster of a bill (topping the 1,502-page health bill from the Senate Finance Committee), it will be important to determine how the feds and health care providers will come to these negotiated rates. Plus, other questions crop up, like will the government-run plan be subject to the same rules and market regulations that private insurers face? If we see the same language in the new House bill that was in H.R. 3200, then government will operate on an unlevel playing field where it has a clear advantage in the marketplace.”

Families USA’s Julia Eisman says the bill “sets a gold standard.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn titles his post, “House to PhRMA: No Deal.” Cohn notes that the House bill does not square with the White House and PhRMA’s $80 billion deal: “The House, though, was not party to this deal. And so it’s decided to ask a little more–about twice as much, in fact.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein interviews Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., saying, “there is no politician alive today who has worked as long, or as hard, on health-care reform as Rep. John Dingell Jr.” Indeed, the octogenarian has worked on health legislation for decades. Dingell says, “This is the furthest I can recall health-care reform ever going, including in my days, and my dad’s days. A bill moving in the House. A bill moving in the Senate. Strong support in the admin. Strong popular support for the bill. A carefully crafted piece of legislation. A willingness of everybody to work together to work together towards what is a widely shared common goal.”

And The American Spectator’s Philip Klein points out new tax provisions, “Scanning through the bill, I noticed that the bill would add a new section to the federal tax code: “PART VIII:HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES.” Among the new taxes are penalties for individuals who don’t purchase insurance and employers who don’t provide insurance, income tax surcharges of up to 5.6% to those earning more than $1 million, and a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices.”

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Tags: cost, house, pelosi, public plan, reform, taxes
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics: