Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘summit’

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

Picking Apart Obama’s Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, February 22nd, 2010