KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics:

Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘reform’

« Older Entries

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

Mass Revolt?

Health reform is in serious jeopardy. Its advocates appear shell-shocked. Opponents are far from sleeping easy. And bloggers are bickering about the meaning of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Tuesday’s special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. And there’s no agreement on what comes next, either.

Bob Laszewski, who doesn’t support the health bills in Congress, proclaims, “Stick a fork in it! The Democratic effort to pass a health bill is dead.”  He blames public opinion, and continues, “For goodness sakes—they rejected it in Massachusetts! On the political shocker scale this rivals “Dewey Defeats Truman” and the ‘94 elections.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein suggests there is a way forward through a reconciliation bill, though he says it would be much more “limited” than the current proposed bills: “If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. … So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy. And that’s it.”

Heritage’s Brian Darling says the election “sent a thunderbolt from Boston to Washington that may push ObamaCare into the critical list.” According to Darling, because the seat has been held by Democrats for more than 50 years, the election is “evidence” that “the American people are angry and dissatisfied with Washington’s direction on health care reform.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn tries to inject some sense into panicked Democrats, arguing that a vote can take place quickly and the House, by agreeing to vote on the Senate-passed version of health care “could put health care reform on the president’s desk for signing. One lousy vote. One lousy, stinking roll call vote. That’s the only hurdle in the way of health care reform.  Are Democrats really willing to give up now?”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey looks at tepid support from Democratic caucus members for continuing to push their reform bill but cautions, “For the moment, it seems as though ObamaCare has been stopped.  But that doesn’t mean that it’s dead.”

Critical Condition’s Benjamin Zycher is cautious as well, and says Democrats may try to pass a smaller version of reform that focuses on “insurance reform.”  Zycher argues that Republicans should still oppose this kind of legislation because, “this path would lead inexorably to the nirvana of health-care socialism that the Left has been dreaming about for decades.”

And labor groups have announced one tactic they’ll support, TPM’s Brian Beutler reports: “The most influential labor organizations in the country have arrived at a common solution to the Democrats’ health care conundrum: Move forward, pass the Senate bill through the House, but only if a separate, filibuster proof bill codifying a crucial changes is passed post haste.”

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

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

More on Mass

The health blogosphere is spinning out of focus today as its residents and commentators try to intuit what a Republican victory in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race could mean for Democrats’ efforts to overhaul the health care system.

Heritage’s Mike Brownfield thinks President Obama’s domestic agenda has led to dissatisfaction that’s being reflected in the election:

Those anti-big-government sentiments could put the kibosh on President Obama’s hallmark health care legislation if today’s special election for the late Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat doesn’t go the President’s way. Make no mistake, the Massachusetts election is very much about national issues – and President Obama’s liberal agenda. Health care came to dominate the Massachusetts race, and Republican candidate Scott Brown has made no bones about being the deciding vote to block Democrats’ health care reform legislation.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn points out that Republican Candidate Brown has taken a split position on health reform: “Scott Brown is running on a promise to block the health care bill in Washington. But, as you may have heard, he is not running on a promise to roll back the reforms that Massachusetts implemented three years ago. In fact, he says he supports those reforms. …It’s pretty clear why Brown isn’t opposing the Massachusetts reforms: They happen to be popular.”

Several commentators are analyzing ‘Plan Bs’ should Democrat Martha Coakley lose — and throw the Senate’s current 60-votes for health care into question.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait says one option for Democrats to pursue is renewing efforts to persuade Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to vote for the Senate bill.  Says Chait:

Go back to Olympia Snowe. I have not seen any persuasive reporting, or even conjecture, about what Snowe is actually thinking. Her substantive demands have been met. By the end of the process, her only demand was to delay the bill by some unspecified time period, which is such a vacuous demand that it’s hard to believe it represents her actual beliefs. Did she turn against the bill completely? Did she decide that she couldn’t take the heat for voting yes? Or did she figure that, with sixty Democrats, her voted wouldn’t really be needed so there was no reason for her to take the heat? If options 1 and 2 fail, we may find out about Snowe.

Cato’s Michael Cannon disagrees, arguing that Snowe’s vote isn’t an option — unless Dems are will to make significant sacrifies:

If she were to vote for an individual mandate after declaring that such a law would violate the Constitution, Snowe could reasonably be accused of violating the oath she swore to the Constitution upon joining the Senate.

Yet Democrats are unlikely to support any bill that does not include an individual mandate.  As President Obama told a joint session of Congress, his plan “only works” if lawmakers force everyone to purchase government-designed health insurance.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey notes that even some Democrats are expressing doubt about a health bill’s chances should Brown win: “Republicans have argued that a Scott Brown victory today would stop ObamaCare in its tracks. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi insist that it won’t. On today’s “Morning Joe,” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) agreed with Republicans, saying that he would have a “difficult time” voting for what he sees as an inferior Senate bill.”

Critical Condition’s James Capretta looks at options being discussed and says the idea of a “Plan B is absurd.”  Capretta continues: “If Brown were to win, it would send shock waves through Democratic ranks unlike anything we have seen in recent years. Democratic infighting would intensify. Many more closed-door meetings would be held as members vented and fought over what to do. It would takes weeks, not days, for this process to play out. There would be no health-care bill before the president is forced to deliver a state of the union address.”

Comments like Capretta’s are the likely inspiration for Ezra Klein’s declaration: “The only thing Democrats need to fear is fear itself.” According to Klein, “The bottom line is that it’s health-care reform was a good idea last week, it’s a good idea next week. Brown doesn’t change the politics, the policy, or the feasibility of passing the bill.”

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

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

What To Expect In The First Six Months Of Health Reform

This post is in collaboration with NPR.

As the Senate inches closer to passing its health overhaul bill, some are pointing out that many changes, including a requirement that most Americans get insurance, won’t kick in until 2014.

If health overhaul legislation passes, expect some things to shrink, and some things to expand.  But a handful of new rules and benefits kick in much earlier — six months after enactment. Here’s what you can expect sooner rather than later:

A Shrinking Medicare “Doughnut Hole”
Starting in 2010, the coverage gap for prescription drugs in seniors’ drug plans would shrink by $500 a year. Starting in July, brand-name drugs would be discounted by 50 perceny for many seniors in the coverage gap.

New Rules On Insurance Coverage
Within six months of enactment, insurers would be required to:

  • Cover preventive care and wellness benefits — which insurers wouldn’t be permitted to count toward enrollees’ deductibles. 
  • Cover children with preexisting conditions, including asthma and cancer.
  • Let young adults stay on their parents’ plans until age 26 — which is longer than the current rules in most states.

There’s one big caveat: All of the above changes only apply to new health insurance plans.

What exactly is a “new plan?” Any health insurance plan that you or your employer buys after the six months following enactment. Renewal of existing plans doesn’t count, but all plans would be subject to the new rules starting in 2014.

A New National High-Risk Pool
Currently offered in many states, these plans are meant to provide coverage for people who are uninsurable for medical reasons. Under the Senate bill, some uninsured Americans, as well as legal immigrants with preexisting conditions, would be able to buy coverage through the pools.

Limits On Limits
There’s some changes to the kinds of limits insurers can apply to your policy. “Lifetime maximum benefits” — or how much they pay out for your care as long as you’re a member — are nixed, effective six months after enactment.

At the same time, the secretary of Health and Human Services will determine acceptable annual limits on insurers’ coverage.

In addition, insurers wouldn’t be permitted to cancel, or rescind policies, unless there’s evidence of fraud or willful distortion of your medical history, effective six months after the law is enacted. But again, these requirements apply only to new plans for the first few years.

Tax Credits For Small Businesses
Some small business would be eligible for tax credits for 35 percent of their health-insurance premiums, starting in 2010. Amanda Austin, director of federal public policy at the National Federation of Independent Business, estimates the credits will apply to slightly more than 12 percent of businesses. While saying NFIB “is thankful the coverage was improved,” Austin points to a Congressional Budget Office report that found the credits won’t help reduce the overall cost of premiums for small businesses.

Information For Consumers
Finally, the Senate bill provides help to states to set up new offices for appeals and complaints against health insurers. And it calls for the creation of a new Web site that will help “facilitate informed consumer choice of insurance options.”

The most expensive — and most controversial — parts of the new law don’t start for a few years. So patients with preexisting conditions will have to wait; low-income Americans don’t get expanded Medicaid coverage just yet, and other big changes — like the doling out of billions of dollars in subsidies to people who need help buying insurance — are still to come.

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

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

Stuffing Your Stockings With Videos

To celebrate the end of the week (though the Senate will keep working through the weekend!), we’re highlighting some recent multimedia  health reform battles.

MoveOn.org raised over $1 million following Sen. Joe Lieberman’s initial promise to filibuster health reform.  Then the liberal advocacy org produced this sock puppet video:

Chris Rovzar of New York Magazine’s Daily Intel writes, “they’re launching a mildly mean ad campaign. Involving unfunny sock puppets! That’ll teach him, libs. You spend that money wisely.”

A video of Sen. Al Franken denying Lieberman an extension  of time to finish a floor speech (in support of an amendment for a Medicare advisory committeee) caused Hot Air’s Allah Pundit to quip: “Lieberman says he doesn’t take it personally, but if you believe the left, his every waking moment is spent calculating revenge on his political enemies. How will he thwart Franken?”

The Heritage Foundation posts a video that includes doctors  “talking back” to Vice President Biden on health reform:

The White House blog just posted a video of President Obama after he met with Senate leaders Tuesday, saying he thinks they are “on the verge of passing significant reform legislation.”

But Dems beware, Sen. Jim DeMint is lading a charge to have the entire bill read aloud, and turned to Twitter for more support this morning:

demint tweet

Friday, December 18th, 2009

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

Unanswerable Questions

Many blog eyes are focused on where the action is – the Senate.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein gives a preview of “worth-taking-seriously” bipartisan amendments to be offered today by Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Ron Wyden. Klein says the proposed changes are substantive, adding, “If the Senate would turn the bulk of its attention to debating what types of plans should be in the exchanges and how they should be chosen, the debate would be somewhat less interesting, but the eventual bill might be a lot better. Collins and Wyden are taking a stab a doing that, and they deserve plaudits for it.” 

Those amendments are sure to add more pages to the bill.  The 2,000+ page length has been a big complaint from right-leaning commentators since the start. But Capital Gains and Games’ Stan Collender says the length isn’t because of the bill itself — it’s the way law is written, which is far from conversational:

If you’re having trouble getting your mind around this concept, think of it as the difference between the formal way you were taught to speak in school when you were learing a foreign language and how you’re more likely to say the same thing now. In other words, instead of saying:

“Good morning.  I hope you slept well.  What are your plans for the rest of the day?”

You probably say something like:

“What’s up?”

In other words, unless you want to speak like you first Spanish or French teacher, you absolutely need to resist the urge to criticize health care reform because of the number of pages in the draft legislation.

James Capretta disagrees and says health bills are so long “because the authors start from the premise that the federal government has the capacity to centrally plan one-sixth of the American economy from Washington, D.C. That’s the main reason the bill contains scores of new agencies, mountains of regulations, and pages and pages of taxes, mandates, and fees.”

Elsewhere, Worker’s Comp Insider hosts Health Wonk Review, your biweekly compendium of  health policy blogging.

Dana Goldman on the New York Times’ Economix says “Everyone from Michael Moore to Sarah Palin agrees that limiting access to any beneficial care, no matter how cost-ineffective, is unequivocally immoral.” He adds, “In the absence of such fundamental reforms, there are worthwhile (albeit smaller) steps we can take to encourage greater consciousness of health care costs. And these steps do not require government panels making health care decisions,” and then offers fixes — including fast-tracking some FDA approvals, legal reform and removing the tax exclusion for health insurance.  Goldman offers fixes to get around the idea of “death panels” — fast-tracking some FDA approvals, legal reform and removing the tax exclusion for health insurance.

And Cato’s Tad DeHaven looks at more reports of Medicare fraud in Miami-Dade county and notes that “the defrauding isn’t sophisticated – it’s just good ole fashioned bribery.”  Apparently the defrauders bribed doctors and others with cash to write false prescriptions and referrals.

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Another Wrench In Health Overhaul Debate, This Time From CMS

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, over on the left…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 16th, 2009

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

Veteran’s Day Roundup

It’s a bit slow in the blogosphere on this Veteran’s Day – maybe not just because of the holiday, but also as a reaction to the past week’s overwhelming pace of activity. But never fear, it’s never entirely quiet out there.

Two bloggers are taking critical inventory of new state laws governing health insurance and the uninsured.  Insure Blog’s Henry Stern is looking at “state experiments” in health reform. He focuses on a program in Ohio that is supposed to insurane an additional 52,000 residents by capping rates.  After the program started, one Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield carrier announced it was no longer selling a particular plan in the state. Stern concludes, “So what’s the lesson here? When you restrict carriers’ ability to compete in the market, consumers end up with fewer choices. Maybe that was the point of this exercise (wonders the cynic), but it certainly does not bode well for similar efforts on a national scale.”

Louise Norris ponders another state law, this time in Colorado, that prohibits underwriting small group premiums.  Norris thinks there’s some flaws in the law’s design that could raise prices: “But while HB1355 was beneficial to groups with unhealthy members, the majority of small groups in Colorado had a discount before HB1355 took effect.  And if those groups are unable to afford their new, higher rates, they can opt to cancel their coverage – which leads to higher prices for groups that remain covered.  On a national level, as far as individual health insurance is concerned, HB1355 should be considered a warning sign.  Getting rid of medical underwriting is the right, and fair, thing to do.  But not if people can come and go as they please in the insurance system.”

Elsewhere, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn reports that a drug industry deal with the administration on health reform could actually lead to an increase in pharmaceutical prices.   Cohn looks at a new report from the consulting group IMS Health, which found  “that the drug industry will see average annual growth of 3.5 percent between 2008 and 2013.”

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit ruminates about former President Clinton’s talk with Senate Democrats: “I think he’s right that they’re winning, actually, if ‘winning’ is defined in terms of whether a bill passes or not. The abortion death struggle will give Reid a headache and they’ll probably have to end up dropping the public option, but Clinton’s strategy is a sound one: Pass anything you can pass now, then spend next year doing whatever it takes to woo voters and minimize the inevitable GOP gains in the midterms.”

James Capretta on Critical Condition examines the health overhaul bills’ efforts to contain costs and concludes, “The federal government, subject as it is to the constraints of politics, can’t do it. The only way to slow the pace of rising costs without sacrificing quality is by building a functioning marketplace, with cost-conscious consumers driving the allocation of resources. The government must play an important oversight role in such a marketplace. But if we rely on politicians, or even commissions that answer to them, for cost control, what we will get is lower quality, not more efficiency.”

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is guest posting on Marilyn Werber-Serafini’s blog about health care fraud and abuse. He asks, “Are the anti-fraud efforts contained in the leading Senate and House bills likely to produce significant savings? What sort of provisions should be contained in order to maximize savings?”  Responders include Henry Aaron, John Goodman, Uwe Reinhardt and Marilyn Werber Serafini.

And Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Program, a veteran, reflects and points to a new Harvard study estimating 2,266 veterans died in part because they lacked health insurance and access to care. McCanne, a single-payer supporter, writes, “How can we continue to support a fragmented, dysfunctional financing system that allows some of our veterans (not to mention tens of thousands of others of us) to die merely because we have placed a higher priority on nurturing the private insurance industry than we have on improving access for everyone through a more effective health care financing system? Our veterans. How can we let them down like this?”

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

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

Outrage Erupts Over Stupak Amendment

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

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

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

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

The American Prospect’s Ann Friedman reacts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 9th, 2009

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

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: , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

« Older Entries

Contact Us

Facebook

RSS

twitter

Recent Posts

Archives

kff.org

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