Health Care Reform | CentristNet

Posts Tagged ‘Health Care Reform’

Obama on Speaking Time Imbalance: “Because I’m the President”; UPDATE: Video Added

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

President Barack Obama Appears Bored as He Listens to Members of Congress Recite Scripted Speeches in the First Hour to Today's Health Care Summit

The health care summit between the Congressional GOP, President Obama and Democratic Congressional Leadership is off to an entertaining but generally unsubstantive start, with scripted speeches the norm and a few interesting interactions. Sadly, it appears that actual negotiations over a incremental centrist health care reform bill appears to be out of the question so far as all the Democrats are condemning any talk of an incremental approach while focusing on anecdotal examples of individuals who are without health care instead of the legislation under debate, despite stated agreements over the Medicare fraud sanctions database and enforcement (see #5 of OPINION piece) concept and the stated agreements about the need for substantial medical malpractice reform (see #2 of OPINION piece). At least for now, the Democrats, led by President Obama, are sticking to the “big bill” gameplan and we expect the remainder of the summit to proceed as the first hour did: scripted speeches and a few testy interactions but little substantive progress on a bipartisan deal.

One interesting testy interaction that just occurred was between President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over the issue of the time allotted to each party. McConnell noted that the GOP had received a fair amount less time than the Democrats so far, and the President agreed that there was a time imbalance and quipped that it is “because I’m the President” and his speaking time didn’t “count” toward the pledged equal division of time between parties. Politico reports on the exchange:

McConnell interrupted the discussion at Blair House Thursday, over an hour after it began, to note that Republicans had only spoken for 24 minutes compared with 52 minutes for the Democrats.

“I don’t think that’s quite right, but I’m just going back and forth here, Mitch,” Obama said. “I think we’re just trying to go back and forth, but that’s okay.”

A few moments later, Obama noted the session was running long and acknowledged – with an explanation – that Republicans hadn’t spoken for quite as long.

“You’re right that there’s an imbalance on the opening statements, because I’m the president,” Obama said. “I didn’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”

Such quips from Obama are sure to rile the GOP, who considered the equal time pledge by the White House binding.

Another interesting talking point Obama continues to return to is the comparison of shoddy car insurance to what Obama claims is shoddy health insurance as sold now without the benefit of the federal regulations that Obamacare would impose. House Member Paul Ryan (R-Mi.) made the point that conservatives and moderates are rejecting the Obama Health Plan because of disapproval of the increased federal regulatory power and mandates that will be imposed if Obama’s comprehensive plan is passed. Obama used his car insurance analogy to respond to Ryan’s point, claiming that the federal health rules are necessary to stop shoddy health insurance from being sold. However, there are no federal car insurance regulations, such regulations are handled by state governments, as are regulations over health insurance policy terms as of today. Obama’s proposal envisions bringing another set of regulations over all health insurance policies on top of the current state health insurance regulations, in essence creating a federal insurance commissioner on top of the already-existing 50 state insurance commissioners.

UPDATE: Realclearpolitics posts the video clip of the McConnell-Obama exchange.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, because i'm the president, Benef, Blair House, Car Insurance, Congressional Leadership, Gameplan, GOP, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Health Insurance, Incremental Approach, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, Members Of Congress, Mitch Mcconnell, Quips, Remainder, Sanctions, Scripted Speeches, Senate Minority Leader, Senate Minority Leader Mitch, Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, Substantive Progress, Time Pledge, Yawns

Tags: Barack Obama, because i'm the president, Benef, Blair House, Car Insurance, Congressional Leadership, Gameplan, GOP, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Health Insurance, Incremental Approach, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, Members Of Congress, Mitch Mcconnell, Quips, Remainder, Sanctions, Scripted Speeches, Senate Minority Leader, Senate Minority Leader Mitch, Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, Substantive Progress, Time Pledge, Yawns
Posted in Daily Content | No Comments »

OPINION: What America Needs: Centrist Health Care Reform

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

CentristNet Offers Its First Opinion Piece Regarding the Elements of Centrist Health Care Reform That President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans Can Agree Upon at the Health Care Summit

As the hours count down to the beginning of the vaunted health care summit in Washington, in our opinion, there are many areas in which President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans can agree to move forward with significant, yet incremental reforms to the American health care system. Most, if not all on the left argue that only a comprehensive, federal government-centered health care plan, like Obama’s Health Plan as released Monday, can reduce the cost of health insurance, reduce the number of uninsured, improve patient outcomes and contain projected massive federal deficits from present health entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Indeed, as President Obama and many Congressional Democrats repeatedly state, a comprehensive federal health care reform plan has been the ultimate goal of the left for many decades. Some, but not a majority on the right argue that there is no need for health care reform at this time. The views of the left and the right, as outlined above, are incorrect and an pivot from the present trajectory of health care debate towards centrist health care reform is the appropriate policy choice, as we will detail below.

As the developments this week make clear, with President Obama planning to use reconciliation to push through his left-leaning Obamacare and Congressional Republicans calling for a fresh start to the bill writing process on a blank piece of paper, the prospects for a bipartisan deal from tomorrow’s summit look slim. The just-leaked smaller Obama plan, if the leak proves accurate, could run into similar troubles, as a key concern of many Americans is the increased federal bureaucracy envisioned by each of his plans. Indeed, the actual overall cost of the Obama Health Plan and the various arguably misleading claims made on Obamacare’s behalf have not inspired confidence in President Obama’s handling of health care, which fell to a mere 35% approval (and 55% disapproval) in the last CBS/NYT poll. Instead of giving into pressures from party ideologues on both sides, we hope that President Obama and Congressional Republicans put aside partisanship and the zero-sum calculus of political warfare to actually consider some centrist health care policies that can be quickly passed, this year, with bipartisan support.

Obama’s present strategy to use reconciliation to pass Obamacare through the Senate after passing the present Senate bill through the House of Representatives has no guarantee of success considering the present bills’ massive unpopularity with the American public and the reluctance of House Democrats to make a career-ending vote for Obamacare. Further, a new entitlement passed without bipartisan support would be difficult to maintain in years to come and could poison American politics for a generation. With all that in mind, we offer several straightforward centrist policy prescriptions that the GOP and Obama can agree on. Each centrist incremental federal reform could be worked out between the parties in a matter of weeks, perhaps by fast-tracked policy commissions with an equal split in members between the parties and tasked with producing preliminary reports two weeks from the end of the summit.

1. Federal Incentives To Encourage States to Decrease the Number of Involuntarily Uninsured Americans.

A large part of the issue that many Americans have with Obamacare is the central role of the federal government in the regulation and operation of the American health care industry, with numerous new federal bureaucracies, and attendant federal health bureaucrats to be added to the payroll, that is at the heart of the design of Obamacare. We believe that instead of creating a giant new federal government structure, federal policy should focus on incentivizing the states into experimenting with new measures to reduce cost and the involuntarily uninsured. New federal mandates to states, as are included in Obamacare, would inappropriately constrain the states and hamper the great “laboratory of democracy” from properly operating as it has throughout American history.

While we don’t agree with everything, or even most, of what the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF”) advocates, RWJF’s recent report on the health care “State of the States” appropriately highlighted the key role of the states in finding health care solutions:

States play a critical role in advancing coverage expansions and other health reforms by testing new ideas, both politically and practically. Because health care delivery is largely local, states are closer to the action when it comes to implementing some of the delivery and payment systems changes that are needed to truly transform the health care system. This proximity and flexibility in system redesign is a key strength for states. In addition, states have first-hand knowledge of their local landscape and relationships with the stakeholders that will be necessary to change the system. Much of the work related to implementing insurance reforms, delivery system redesign, and public health strategies traditionally have been led by states.

Some say that the Massachusetts health care plan was a failure because health care costs are rising faster in that state than nationally since the reform passed, the cost overruns regarding projected state spending and the lack of attainment of true universal coverage. However, the State of Massachusetts passed a bipartisan plan with Republican Governor Milt Romney, a 90% Democratic Massachusetts legislature and a cheerleading Teddy Kennedy present for the signing of the bill by Romney. If Massachusetts desires to change or reverse its programs, the people of Massachusetts will make that happen. Every other state in the Union should have the same opportunity to decide how to proceed regarding its health care systems and the federal government should not straight jacket the states into a one size fits all federal mandate via Obamacare. Federal incentives could also be accessible to several states who wish to forum a regional health care system with uniform rules – but the decisions effecting Americans health care should not be left to a faraway bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.

By maintaining the flexibility of states to engage in policy innovation, the probability increases that a health care policy that is proven to work by empirical evidence will emerge and spread around the country once the benefits of such policy are made clear by results. Creating a huge federal bureaucracy with many new mandates on state governments regarding health care policy will stifle this state innovation and risk damaging the present high quality of care provided by American medical professionals across the land. As 70% to 80% of Americans approve of their present health care arrangements, federal health policy must follow the medical maxim of “first do no harm” and avoid the risk of reducing the present quality of care with too much federal government control over states and medical professionals.

2. Reform Medical Malpractice Laws:

There is no serious dispute over the need for substantial medical malpractice reform, or tort reform, on the federal level. Some on the right advocate Texas-style tort reform, which involves caps on damage awards and limiting “jackpot justice”, while some on the left wholly reject any tort reform and others advocate a system of specialized health care courts to replace the present courts of general jurisdiction that handle medical malpractice cases. Both policy approaches have pluses and minuses, and to that end the federal health reform effort should provide incentives to the states to attempt either systemic change. It may be that in the long term, specialized health courts, similar to the workers compensation system, are the better choice, but the states should be free to choose how to design their system, as they are in the workers compensation arena. The left-leaning Progressive Policy Institute outlines some benefits of health care courts:

A Better Way: Health Courts

There are many proposals for health care reform that are focused outside the medical justice system. All are well intentioned and some may be practical, but without legal reforms none will likely succeed in containing costs. Clearly, we need major reform, and we can achieve it in part by instituting a network of specialized health courts to replace the current medical justice system.1

Under health courts, malpractice cases would no longer be heard in civil courts. Instead, they would be handled in an administrative system overseen by the states. The system would be similar to the state-run workers’ compensation system. It would give more injured patients access to quicker and less expensive justice.

….

Health court rulings would establish new standards of practice to cover medical circumstances for which common standards have not previously been settled. The health court system would thus yield an essential benefit that our current system of medical justice fails to provide: consistent, rational rulings that send clear signals to health care providers about what constitutes good medical practice. In so doing, it would help eliminate the legal uncertainty that encourages doctors to practice defensive medicine and the silence among practitioners and patients that very likely contributes to medical errors.

It is possible that if even a few states chose to institute health care courts based on incentives in an incremental, centrist federal health reform plan, the benefits of such specialized courts could become empirically proven in a few years. Once proven successful, such a system may become the standard throughout the country; however, as far as a federal policy is concerned, a state should be free to try traditional tort reform, health care courts or any other solution they can create. A federal plan to incentivize the states in the tort reform arena could not be seriously opposed by either party and legislative language could be worked out relatively quickly by bipartisan negotiators.

3. Create a Federal/State/Insurance Companies Mechanism for Covering the Uninsurable with Preexisting Conditions:

The American public believes by a large majority that some federal action should be taken to assist those Americans who cannot obtain health care insurance because they have an uninsurable preexisting condition. Indeed, logically speaking, requiring an health insurance company to provide insurance to an individual that faces certain, and substantial, medical expenses is similar to requiring a car insurance company to provide insurance to an individual with an already wrecked car. It is simply not economically feasible for the private sector insurers to insure against an already existing condition. Because of this, federal government intervention in the health insurance market is appropriate in the instance of uninsurable individuals.

A centrist proposal to deal with uninsurable individuals is to set up comprehensive high risk pools jointly funded by federal and state governments to enable uninsurable individuals to purchase health insurance and a supporting, pro bono role for health insurance companies in administering the program. 31 States presently have high risk pools, and the inclusion of the federal government and insurers into a comprehensive risk pool policy could reduce the cost to the uninsurable while providing folks with care they otherwise would not have received. Both parties already support the use of risk pools, and the Senate version of Obamacare provides for high risk pools between now and 2013. Health insurance companies should be required to participate in this program as a consequence of the federal law, perhaps conditioning a continued exemption from antitrust laws on cooperation by the insurance companies with the risk pool program. This will be an expensive proposition, and many on both sides of the aisle could object to the high cost and some on the left are sure to argue that a comprehensive health care reform plan would be a cheaper alternative. However, as noted earlier, there is no chance of a bipartisan agreement on a comprehensive health care reform plan this year, but neither party could seriously oppose a serious risk pool program for uninsurable individuals and again, the details of this policy could be worked out in a matter of weeks.

4. Create Bipartisan Commission to Study Medical Billing Reform:

Anyone who has reviewed medical bills as provided by doctors and hospitals and then reviewed the payments actually made, and their variance, between insurance companies, government entities and cash-paying individuals knows that the present medical billing system needs substantial reform. Unfortunately, this issue has gotten little attention in the health care reform debate and does not figure prominently in the Obama Health Plan. A single procedure can be billed at $10,000.00 by a hospital to an individual, yet the same procedure could bring in only $4,000.00 from an insurance company and either more or less from a government entity. Greater transparency is needed in medical billing, and health care consumers need to be more involved and aware of what procedures cost and their various choices to create a more efficient and effective medical billing system. While this policy prescription may not be amenable to a quick bipartisan agreement on legislative mandates, neither party could seriously oppose the creation of a Bipartisan Commission to study the medical billing problem and issue recommendations for negotiations between the politicians in a few months.

5. Create a Medicare/Medicaid Sanctions Database and Act to Reduce “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse” in Medicare and Medicaid:

One provision proposed by the Obama Health Plan on Monday was originally proposed by the Republican Study Committee:

The President’s Proposal establishes a comprehensive Medicare and Medicaid sanctions database, overseen by the HHS Inspector General. This database will provide a central storage location, allowing for law enforcement access to information related to past sanctions on health care providers, suppliers and related entities. (Source: H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill))

Republicans will also likely sign off on some of the other provisions listed on this page by President Obama in his Health Plan, as some are geared towards cracking down on wrongdoers who abuse the payment procedures of Medicare and Medicaid. A good first step, and one that neither party could seriously object to, is the creation of the sanctions database to make sure wrongdoing individuals cannot continue to defraud the government under any circumstances. Again, bipartisan negotiators could work out legislative language on this issue in a matter of weeks.

Many seniors are understandably nervous about what exactly it means for them if Obamacare passes and over 400 Billion Dollars in reductions in Medicare spending occur over the next ten years. A more sensible, bipartisan policy would focus intensely on increasing efficiency in Medicare/Medicaid while reducing waste, fraud and abuse in this programs instead of cutting whole programs like Medicare Advantage, a program relied upon my millions of seniors. Another constructive step would be for President Obama to appoint a Medicare administrator to report to him and Congress about what kind of cuts are feasible or desirable beyond eliminating the improper, fraudulent spending via the sanctions database and stepped up enforcement.

CONCLUSION

The five point plan listed above is no panacea, and will not solve all the problems in the American health care system. However, these above-enumerated centrist health care reforms could not be seriously opposed by either party and compromise legislative language could be worked out in a matter of weeks. Instead of acrimony about Obama’s planned use of reconciliation and the GOP’s obstructionism, one can only hope that the participants in today’s health care summit put aside the pressures of party ideologues on both sides and decide to forge real consensus where it is actually possible: centrist, incremental health care reform.

Update: The initial speeches by President Obama, GOP Senator Lamar Alexander, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid show little sign of true bipartisan negotiations.

Technorati Tags: American Health Care, American Health Care System, Barack Obama, Blank Piece Of Paper, Congressional Democrats, Congressional Republicans, Federal Bureaucracy, Federal Deficits, Federal Health Care, Fresh Start, Health Care Debate, Health Care Industry, Health Care Plan, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Health Care System, Health Plan, Incremental Reforms, Legitimate Role, Patient Outcomes, Policy Choice, Writing Process, Zero Sum

Tags: American Health Care, American Health Care System, Barack Obama, Blank Piece Of Paper, Congressional Democrats, Congressional Republicans, Federal Bureaucracy, Federal Deficits, Federal Health Care, Fresh Start, Health Care Debate, Health Care Industry, Health Care Plan, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Health Care System, Health Plan, Incremental Reforms, Legitimate Role, Patient Outcomes, Policy Choice, Writing Process, Zero Sum
Posted in Daily Content | 24 Comments »

CNN: 73% Say Start From Scratch (48%) or Stop Work Completely (25%) on Health Care Reform; UPDATE: 52% Oppose Use of Reconciliation

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid May Want to Review CNN's Finding that 73% of the American Public Oppose Passing the Health Care Reform Bills before Congress now or Something Similar

This afternoon CNN released some troubling findings for the Obama Administration: Just 25% of the American public wants Congress to follow the lead of the newly released Obama Health Plan and pass a health care reform plan similar to the plans now before Congress. An overwhelming majority of Americans, 73%, prefer that Congress either start from scratch (48%) or stop work completely on health care reform (25%). Obama’s Health Plan contains essentially the same policies as the bill passed by the Senate, with the addition of price controls for health insurance premiums.

CNN buries the lede in its article accompanying the release of its findings, never mentioning that an overwhelming majority (73%) of the American public disapprove of passing a bill similar to the one before Congress, including four in ten Democrats who want the President and Congress to start over. CNN does manage to state that “nearly three quarters” of Americans want some kind of reform, including in that figure the 48% who want Congress to start over in that grouping in a somewhat dishonest fashion:

Washington (CNN) – Although the overall health care reform bills passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate are unpopular, many of the provisions in the existing bills are extremely popular, even among Republicans, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday also indicates that only a quarter of the public want Congress to stop all work on health care, with nearly three quarters saying lawmakers should pass some kind of reform.

Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.

…..

The poll’s release comes one day before a critical televised health care summit hosted by President Obama that will include top Congressional Democrats and Republicans.

The survey indicates nearly half of all Democrats say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with nearly 4 in 10 Democrats saying Congress should start from scratch and just 1 in 10 saying lawmakers should stop all work on health care.

A majority of Republicans questioned, 54 percent, want Congress to start from scratch, with just under 4 in 10 saying lawmakers should halt work on health care reform and just 6 percent saying Congress should pass into law the current legislation.

Fifty-two percent of Independents want Congress to start work on a new bill, with 27 percent saying lawmakers should stop all work, and 18 percent saying that the current legislation should be passed into law.

The final finding noted above in the CNN excerpt is truly incredible: a full 79% of Independents reject passing the current bills before Congress or something similar and only 18% of Independents favor moving forward with the present bills as advocated by the Obama Health Plan. That’s a 61 point gap between approval and disapproval, running against the plan initiated by the release of the Obama Health Plan last Monday and subsequent advocacy of the reconciliation process to circumvent the filibuster and push through Obamacare by the President and his Democratic congressional allies. With the mood of the country so clearly opposed to moving forward with the present bills or something similar in Congress, Obama must provide an incredible performance tomorrow to move public opinion back his way to convince nervous Democrats in Congress that proceeding with pushing through Obamacare now is in their best electoral interest.

UPDATE: Hotair points out that a new USAToday/Gallup poll taken yesterday shows the public opposed to Obama’s possible use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare by a 52%/39% margin and that only 22% of the public thinks the health care summit will result in a bipartisan deal.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs indicated Monday that, if necessary, the White House was open to using a parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation to bypass a prospective filibuster in the Senate. That means a measure could pass the Senate with a 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes needed to end debate.

Americans are opposed 52%-39% to using that device to get a bill through.

The poll of 1,009 adults nationwide, taken by landline and cellphone Tuesday, has a margin of error of +/—4 percentage points.

UPDATE: Ace at Ace of Spades and Allahpundit at Hotair link over, thank you guys. Readers of Ace and Hotair please take a look around and leave a comment or three.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Cnn, Harry Reid, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Premiums, Health Plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Lede, Nancy Pelosi, National Poll, Opinion Research Corporation, Overwhelming Majority, Passing A Bill, Reform Bills, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Majority Leader Harry, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Start From Scratch, Three Quarters

Tags: Barack Obama, Cnn, Harry Reid, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Premiums, Health Plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Lede, Nancy Pelosi, National Poll, Opinion Research Corporation, Overwhelming Majority, Passing A Bill, Reform Bills, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Majority Leader Harry, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Start From Scratch, Three Quarters
Posted in Daily Content | 28 Comments »

Obama 2012 Begins Operations: Hatch Act Violations?

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod (left) and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina (right) have initiated Obama 2012 reelection activities according to the Politico exclusive reporting

Nearly three years before a possible reelection vote for President Obama in November 2012, Barack Obama has initiated 2012 campaign activities in the past few weeks according to an exclusive report from Politico’s Mike Allen.:

President Barack Obama’s top advisers are quietly laying the groundwork for the 2012 reelection campaign, which is likely to be run out of Chicago and managed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, according to Democrats familiar with the discussions.

The planning for now consists entirely of private conversations, with Obama aides at all levels indulging occasionally in closed-door 2012 discussions while focusing ferociously on the midterm elections and health care reform, the Democratic sources said. “The gathering storm is the 2010 elections,” one top official said.

But the sources said Obama has given every sign of planning to run again, and wants the next campaign to resemble the highly successful 2008 effort.

David Axelrod, White House senior adviser, may leave the West Wing to rejoin his family in Chicago and reprise his role as Obama’s muse, overseeing the campaign’s tone, themes, messages and advertising, the sources said.

David Plouffe, the Obama for America campaign manager, described by one friend as “the father of all this,” will be a central player in the reelect, perhaps as an outside adviser.

“The conversations are beginning, but decisions haven’t been made,” a top official said. “If you look at David Plouffe’s stepped-up level of activity with the political organization [as an outside adviser on the 2010 races], that is obviously the beginning of the process.”

This disclosure of the ongoing Obama 2012 campaign work in the White House with “Obama aides at all levels indulging occasionally in closed-door 2012 discussions” could be construed as a possible violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities. The key question regarding a Hatch Act violation would be if any of the “Obama aides” involved in “closed-door 2012 discussions” are outside of the exemptions of the Hatch Act, as such exemption covers federal employees paid via an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President or federal employees that are nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

If federal employees who are not subject to the exemption are shown to have participated in the nascent Obama 2012 activities, such activities may be in violation of the Hatch Act as non-exempt employees are prohibited from “doing political work while on duty, in uniform, in the office or in a government vehicle.” The exempt political appointees of the President can engage in political activities “provided their actions don’t amount to coercive use of the office to which they have been appointed. They cannot pay for political activities with taxpayer dollars, however.” The use of taxpayer dollars in furtherance of the Obama 2012 campaign by “Obama aides at all levels” during “closed door” discussions in federally-funded offices and/or travel to Chicago (where Politico reports Obama 2012 is based) could be violations of the Hatch Act.

Following this exclusive disclosure of these Obama 2012 activities by Politico, in the midst of the battle over passing Obamacare, the media is sure to attempt in the days to come to identify each and every one of the “Obama aides at all levels” who were engaging in such Obama 2012 activities and whether their political activities amounted to Hatch Act violations.

UPDATE: Hotair points out that Obama was just weeks ago talking about being a “great” one term President:

Didn’t The One tell us just a few weeks ago that he’d rather be a great one-term president than a mediocre two-termer? I guess he’s … planning for mediocrity, then?

Technorati Tags: 2012, America Campaign, Barack Obama, Campaign Activities, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Democratic Sources, Deputy Chief Of Staff, Exclusive Report, Gathering Storm, Hatch Act, Health Care Reform, Jim Messina, Midterm Elections, obama 2012, Obama For America, Private Conversations, Reelect, Reelection Campaign, White House Chief Of Staff, White House Deputy Chief, White House Deputy Chief Of Staff

Tags: 2012, America Campaign, Barack Obama, Campaign Activities, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Democratic Sources, Deputy Chief Of Staff, Exclusive Report, Gathering Storm, Hatch Act, Health Care Reform, Jim Messina, Midterm Elections, obama 2012, Obama For America, Private Conversations, Reelect, Reelection Campaign, White House Chief Of Staff, White House Deputy Chief, White House Deputy Chief Of Staff
Posted in Daily Content | 5 Comments »

Obama Reconciliation Strategy Rallies Moderate Democrats

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

Democratic Senators are Rallying Around Obama's Health Plan and the Use of the Reconciliation Process

In the wake of the release of the 11 page Obama Health Plan, which clearly envisions the use of the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation, moderate Democratic Senators who are on record opposing the use of reconciliation for Obamacare are now reversing themselves. Senators Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ben Nelson (D-Ne.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who all previously stated their opposition to the reconciliation procedure, are signaling that their opposition to reconciliation is now waning. Additionally, some House Democrats who previously opposed the Senate bill are also softening their opposition. Both House and Senate Democrats appear both impressed by Obama’s release of his own plan as well as accepting the Obama Administration’s argument that a bad bill is better than no bill for Democratic electoral prospects in November 2010. Obama’s strategy to paint the GOP as obstructionists is also helping garner Democratic support for the use of reconciliation. Indeed, as Thursday’s health care summit approaches, the continual White House assertions of GOP intransigence on health care appear to be paying off by providing moderate Democrats political cover to abandon their prior anti-reconciliation stances.

Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown reports:

An idea that seemed toxic only weeks ago — using a parliamentary tactic to ram health reform through the Senate — is gaining acceptance among moderate Democrats who have resisted the strategy but now say GOP opposition may force their hands.

The implications of the subtle shift among this small group of centrist senators could mean the difference between success and failure for health care reform — giving Democrats a potential road map for passing a bill that had been left for dead after the Massachusetts Senate defeat.

That mood in the Senate was matched Tuesday by a growing momentum for President Barack Obama’s health care proposal in the House, where Democrats were beginning to coalesce around the view that passing a flawed bill is better than passing none at all.

These shifts couldn’t come at a better time for Obama ahead of Thursday’s health care summit. The White House has signaled he’s prepared to use reconciliation, which would require just 51 votes to pass health reform.

The comments also seemed to reflect the early soundings of a Democratic strategy for selling the public on the tactic, especially if no Republicans sign on to Obama’s plan after the summit: The GOP made us do it.

“Obviously, if the minority is just frustrating the process, that argues for taking steps to get the public’s business done,” said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who was one of the leading voices against the procedure after the Massachusetts election, calling it “very ill-advised.”

“At the same time … Republicans would probably shut the place down, but you could argue they are doing that anyway,” Bayh said.

Bayh’s remarks Tuesday came a day after Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) cited Republican obstructionism as a reason why she could embrace the parliamentary maneuver to pass health care reform. Last month, she said she was leaning against reconciliation.

“I’m staying open to see how these negotiations go forward,” Landrieu said. “I’ve not generally been a big supporter, but the Republican Party, the leadership, has really been very, very, very disingenuous in this process.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he doesn’t prefer reconciliation, but it may be the only way.

“I’d like to see as many votes as possible,” he said. “But at the end of the day, with the obstructionism going on at the level that it is, I’m more interested in what’s in the package than I am in the process of how many votes it takes to get it through.”

To be sure, the hints on reconciliation do not signal any kind of ironclad commitment. Democrats remain hesitant about using the procedure, fearful that Republicans will be successful in convincing voters that it is an end-run around the normal legislative process.

However, it is a mixed bag for Democrats in the past few days, as shown by Steny Hoyer’s comments earlier today that “[w]e may not be able to do” a comprehensive health care reform bill. Some moderate House Democrats also voiced disapproval with Obama’s new strategy, including Blue Dog leader Heath Shuler (D-Pa.) and Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). Considering today’s shift of moderate Democratic Senators towards supporting Obama’s plan to use reconciliation, the tougher battle for Obama may now lie with finding 218 votes from the House of Representatives, especially as perhaps as many as 60 Democratic House members are facing defeat in November 2010. The Associated Press outlines the importance of Thursday’s summit and the uncertainty of House passage:

If Obama fails on a comprehensive health care overhaul where Bill Clinton and other presidents failed before him, the chance won’t come around again anytime soon.

The whole endeavor will now rise or fall on Obama’s ability to sell his plan at the summit Thursday, and the reaction from lawmakers and the public in the days ahead.

Some rank-and-file Democrats were openly skeptical that the White House and congressional leaders could pull it off. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., a moderate who opposed the health legislation when it passed the House, questioned whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi could hang on to the votes that allowed her to get the bill through 220-215 in November. Since then a couple of Democrats have left the House, and Pelosi may also lose votes from anti-abortion Democrats who oppose the less restrictive abortion language in the Senate bill, which Obama kept in his plan.

“Is she going to be able to hold everybody that was for it before?” Altmire asked. “What about the marginal members in the middle who got hammered over this vote and would love a second chance to perhaps go against it?”

Technorati Tags: Claire Mccaskill, Democratic Senators, Democratic Support, Electoral Prospects, Evan Bayh, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Health Plan, Health Reform, House Democrats, Intransigence, Joe Lieberman, Moderate Democrats, Parliamentary Procedure, Passing A Bill, Reconciliation, Senate Bill, Senate Democrats, Subtle Shift, Success And Failure

Tags: Claire Mccaskill, Democratic Senators, Democratic Support, Electoral Prospects, Evan Bayh, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Health Plan, Health Reform, House Democrats, Intransigence, Joe Lieberman, Moderate Democrats, Parliamentary Procedure, Passing A Bill, Reconciliation, Senate Bill, Senate Democrats, Subtle Shift, Success And Failure
Posted in Daily Content | 147 Comments »

Key Democratic House Member Stupak on Obama’s Health Plan: “Unacceptable” – UPDATED 2X

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak today rejects the Obama Plan, calling it "unacceptable"

In a dramatic statement this morning reported exclusively by Ben Smith at Politico, Democratic House Rep. Bart Stupak rejected yesterday’s 11 page Obama Plan as “unacceptable”:

I was pleased to see that President Obama’s health care proposal did not include several of the sweetheart deals provided to select states in the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the President’s proposal encompasses the Senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable. While the President has laid out a health care proposal that brings us closer to resolving our differences, there is still work to be done before Congress can pass comprehensive health care reform.

While most of the media’s focus in the past few days has been on whether Obama and Harry Reid can find 50 Democratic Senators (with VP Biden as tiebreaking vote) to push Obamacare through the Senate using reconciliation, little ink has been spilled regarding whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi can again find 218 Democratic votes for Obamacare. It may be that the more difficult task will be finding the 218 House votes, and Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak’s “unacceptable” comment this morning brings that difficulty into focus. Dick Morris recently wrote about the coming battle to find 218 votes in the House:

We don’t believe that there is any chance of stopping Obama’s renewed push for his horrible health care changes in the Senate. Harry Reid is going to use the reconciliation procedure to jam it through with 51 votes — and he will get them. All the hype about how difficult it will be is to distract us from the real battle which will come in the House.

There, where every member faces re-election, it will be a lot harder for Pelosi to round up the vote she needs. Last time she passed health care by 220-215. This time, a lot of the Democrats who voted for health care are going to be so worried about re-election that they might be induced to jump ship.

Stupak previously led the fight to conform the prior House version of Obamacare to existing law regarding federal funding of abortion and succeeded in forcing through an amendment in the House with tough language disallowing any federal funding of abortion through Obamacare. The Senate bill has much more permissive language regarding such federal abortion funding, and Stupak’s “unacceptable” statement this morning highlights the importance of the abortion policy in Obamacare and could be a sign that the House of Representatives will not pass the Obama Plan without the insertion of Stupak’s prior restrictive language. The key question in days and weeks to come is whether liberal Democratic House members will buckle under and support the restrictive abortion language Stupak is advocating or risk the defeat of Obamacare in the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: Hotair links to an interesting analysis by Philip Klein on the issue of House passage of Obama’s Health Plan:

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House health care bill [in November], 31 of them were elected in districts that went for John McCain in 2008, according to a TAS analysis. One of the Democratic “no” votes, Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, has subsequently switched parties. Given that a Republican who campaigned on being a vote against the health care bill was just elected to fill the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy in a state that went for Obama by 26 points, it’s hard to see why anybody in a McCain district who already voted “no” would decide switch their vote to “yes.”

While Obama won the districts of the remaining eight “no” votes, in six cases, he won by only single digits, making them potentially competitive races this time around. And a closer look at several members who represent these areas are not very encouraging to proponents of Obamacare…

The biggest problem she faces is that President Obama’s proposal maintains the abortion provision in the Senate bill, rejecting Rep. Bart Stupak’s more restrictive language. When the bill passed the House the first time around, 41 Democrats voted for the health care bill only after voting for the Stupak amendment. Any of them could explain switching to a “no” vote on a final bill by citing abortion funding. Stupak himself has said there are at least 10 to 12 Democrats who voted for the bill the first time who would vote against it if it didn’t include his amendment (he reiterated Tuesday morning that the Senate abortion language adopted by Obama was still “unacceptable”). One of his co-sponsors, Rep. Brad Ellsworth, said at the time that he was only able to vote for the bill after the Stupak language was adopted, and he’s now running for Senate in Indiana, where a Rasmussen poll taken last month shows voters oppose the health care legislation by a 23-point margin.

UPDATE #2: CBS News reports on Stupak’s statement calling the Obama Health Plan “unacceptable” and notes Politico’s reporting that Obama and the Democrats do not have the votes to pass Obamacare now.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, has released a statement saying the White House health care reform plan is “unacceptable” because it “encompasses the Senate language allowing public funding of abortion.”….

The House health care bill would likely not have passed without the Stupak amendment, which attracted the support of 64 Democrats when it came up for vote.

While the Senate and White House plan bans direct funding of abortions, it allows subsidized individuals to pay for covered abortion services with personal funds.

Meanwhile, according to Politico’s Mike Allen, there are currently not enough votes in the House or Senate to pass a health care reform bill.

“Moderate and endangered lawmakers want the spotlight off comprehensive health reform,” he writes. “Instead, it’s about to take center stage.”

Technorati Tags: Abortion, Bart Stupak, Comprehensive Health Care, Comprehensive Health Care Reform, Democratic Rep, Democratic Senators, Democratic Votes, Dick Morris, Dramatic Development, Dramatic Statement, Harry Reid, Health Care Changes, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Hype, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Reconciliation, Senate Bill, Senate Language, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sweetheart

Tags: Abortion, Bart Stupak, Comprehensive Health Care, Comprehensive Health Care Reform, Democratic Rep, Democratic Senators, Democratic Votes, Dick Morris, Dramatic Development, Dramatic Statement, Harry Reid, Health Care Changes, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Hype, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Reconciliation, Senate Bill, Senate Language, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sweetheart
Posted in Daily Content | 5 Comments »

Obama Proposes Passing Partisan Health Care Plan Via Reconciliation Despite Bipartisan Opposition

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Democratic President Barack Obama, and Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, signaled this morning the pathway for the final Democratic push for the passage of Obamacare: the reconciliation process

Three days before the highly publicized health care summit, billed by President Obama and Democrats as an opportunity for bipartisan negotiations regarding the provisions of a potential health care overhaul, the White House signaled its intent to move forward with a $950 billion dollar Democrats-only bill that can garner, at most, a bare 51 vote majority in the United States Senate. Indeed, eight Democratic Senators (including Lieberman) have already gone on record opposing the use of reconciliation to ram through the Obamacare package. Despite Obama’s prior pledges of bipartisan negotiations with the GOP and this morning’s bipartisan rhetoric from the White House, the fact is that the only bipartisanship associated with health care reform is the bipartisan opposition in the House to Obamacare (39 Democratic “no” votes) and the bipartisan opposition to the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare through the Senate.

The substantive content of this morning’s latest White House version of Obamacare is essentially the same plan negotiated between the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the days leading up to Republican Scott Brown’s January 2010 election to the Senate from liberal Massachusetts and the White House roadmap contemplates the use of the reconciliation process in the Senate so as to avoid the need for a 60 vote majority:

“This is our take on the best way to merge the House and Senate bills,” a senior White House official told ABC News. The official said the proposal was “informed by our conversations from negotiations” before Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., was elected, thus depriving Democrats of their 60-vote supermajority, as well as from subsequent discussions.

“We thought it would be a more productive meeting if we brought one consolidated plan to use as jumping-off point,” the official said. “We hope the Republicans do the same.”

By posting their proposals in such a form, White House officials are providing a roadmap for how they think they can best pass health care reform in the new post-Massachusetts Senate race reality: have the House pass the Senate bill, then use reconciliation rules requiring only a majority Senate vote to pass the “fix” to make the bill more palatable.

In the conference call with reporters this morning accompanying the disclosure of the latest iteration of Obamacare, White House officials explicitly stated they intend to use reconciliation to pass Obamacare without any GOP Senate votes:

In the course of unveiling Obama’s new health reform proposal on a conference call with reporters this morning, White House advisers made it clearer than ever before: If the GOP filibusters health reform, Dems will move forward on their own and pass it via reconciliation.

The assertion, which is likely to spark an angry response from GOP leaders, ups the stakes in advance of the summit by essentially daring Republicans to try to block reform.

“The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said on the call.

Accordingly, it appears that the Obama Administration has settled on pursing the use of the Senate reconciliation process, instead of normal order which would require a 60 vote majority, to pass the most far-reaching reform of the health care system in our nation’s history. Indeed, the “package is designed to help us [use reconciliation] if the Republican party decides to filibuster health care reform,” stated White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

The new Obamacare policy summary and the conference call with reporters strongly indicate that little, if any, substantive discussions will occur at Thursday’s health care summit as the Democrats have now settled on the use of reconciliation as the pathway to final passage of Obamacare. The GOP’s incremental ideas such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines, significant tort reform and the use of risk pools for uninsurable Americans with preexisting conditions are nowhere to be found in this morning’s announcement nor in the present Democratic bills in the Senate and House and are essentially inconsistent with the comprehensive, government-centered, Democratic health care reform plans. Furthermore, in a move apparently designed to paint the GOP as pro-insurance, Obama also proposed substantial new federal price controls over the cost of health insurance as part of this morning’s summary.

The above-described White House posture this morning stands in stark contrast to their posture just two weeks ago when the idea of a health care summit was first pitched by President Obama. At that time, Obama promised to engage in substantive negotiations with the GOP on all parts of health care reform plan during the summit:

“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

The 2/8/2010 NYT piece quoted above notes that it “remained an open question whether the meeting could lead to real consensus on health care, or whether it would serve only to allow Democrats to frame a political argument against the Republicans going into the midterm campaign.” Considering this morning’s developments, and the clearly stated intent to move forward with reconciliation passage of the intra-Democrat negotiated Obamacare, there no longer remains a “open question” and instead Obama intends the coming summit to “serve only to allow Democrats to frame a political argument against the Republicans going into the midterm campaign.”

For the ideological left, this morning’s White House summary and the coming health care summit represent “the last, best shot” to pass a comprehensive, government-centered health care reform plan. To a majority of Americans, including almost all conservatives, a strong majority of independents and even some liberals, the Obama Administration’s continued relentless focus on forcing a strongly partisan Obamacare package through Congress is an unfavorable development, as shown by public polling of Obama’s job approval and the approval of the Democratic health care reform packages in Congress.

At least eight Democratic Senators have already announced their opposition to the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare, and those Democratic Senators will almost certainly be joined by the 41 GOP Senators in opposition to the President’s reconciliation plan as announced this morning. It appears from early GOP responses that the GOP intends to attempt to garner 10 Democratic Senator votes to block the use of reconciliation (with 10 Democratic votes, the GOP would have the 51 votes needed to block reconciliation).

Indeed, the irony of the health care reform debate and Obama’s continuous public pledges to engage in bipartisan negotiations with the GOP is the fact that the only bipartisanship associated with health care reform is the bipartisan opposition in the House and Senate to Obamacare, and the next few weeks will probably determine if the GOP is able to garner enough bipartisan support to block the passage of Obamacare through the 51-vote (50 votes plus VP Biden tiebreaker) reconciliation process. Finally, should Obama succeed in finding 217 House votes and 50 Senate votes for Obamacare, the response of the electorate towards those Democrats in November 2010 may be an historic wave of GOP victories rivaling or even surpassing the 1994 GOP wave.

Technorati Tags: Abc News, bipartisan opposition, Democratic Senators, Democratic Speaker, Gop Senators, Health Care Plan, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, House Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Potential Health, Senate Bills, Senate Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Majority Leader Harry, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi, United States Senate, Vote Majority

Tags: Abc News, bipartisan opposition, Democratic Senators, Democratic Speaker, Gop Senators, Health Care Plan, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, House Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Potential Health, Senate Bills, Senate Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Majority Leader Harry, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi, United States Senate, Vote Majority
Posted in Daily Content | 8 Comments »

Strong Public Support for the Obama Presidency Falls to New Low

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

Strong support for of Obama's Presidency dwindled to a new low today: 22% of likely voters.

Despite the return of 2007-2008 Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to an active role in molding President Obama’s political strategy, today’s Rasmussen Reports daily polling shows that only 22% of likely voters strongly approve of Obama’s job performance, a new low of Obama’s Presidency, while 41% strongly disapprove:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 22% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That is the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded for this President.

Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. The Approval Index has been lower only on one day during Barack Obama’s thirteen months in office. The previous low came on December 22 as the Senate was preparing to approve its version of the proposed health care legislation. The current lows come as the President is once again focusing attention on the health care legislation.

Including soft supporters and opponents of the President’s job performance, President Barack Obama’s overall job approval now stands at 45% approval and 54% disapproval amongst likely voters, also near his all-time low of disapproval. Today’s polling, as well as other polling done by Gallup, the NYT and CNN, demostrates the perils of President Obama’s renewed focus on health care legislation with an “impassioned plea” for the passage of Obamacare at the Nevada town hall, in yesterday’s weekly Saturday morning message and the upcoming “Health Care Summit” on February 25, 2010. Obama fell to his lowest ratings of his Presidency at prior moments of intense focus on health care reform, and it appears his renewed focus over the past few days is eliciting a similiar reaction amongst the American public.

On the day of Scott Brown’s election to the US Senate in Massachuetts, President Obama decided to bring Plouffe back into his inner circle and subsequently shifted rhetorical gears to again focus on bipartisanship, with an emphasis on economic policy. That shift in Obama’s political strategy, and Obama’s performances in the State of the Union and at the House Republican retreat, appeared to staunch the bleeding of Obama’s core supporters while providing him a slight bounce amongst independents.

As noted above, the Obama Administration’s return to an intense focus on health care reform in the leadup to the “Health Care Summit” on February 25, 2010 appears to have halted any positive momentum from the Plouffe strategic shift and once again led Obama to fresh lows in strong supporters of his Presidency. The Obama Administration, the Democrat Party and special interest groups that support Obamacare all argue that once passed by Congress and signed by Obama, the public’s strongly negative view of Obamacare will reverse itself. As Obama’s job approval ratings have reached their lows at moments of public focus on health care reform, that theory may not be tested after all as Congress may balk at taking the last leap by passing Obamacare in final form for Obama’s signature via reconciliation in the face of strong public disapproval and GOP condemnation.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Campaign Manager, Cnn, Disapproval, Focus On Health, Health Care Legislation, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Impassioned Plea, Intense Focus, Morning Message, Nevada Town, Nyt, Perils, Political Strategy, Presidential Approval, Presidential Tracking Poll, Proposed Health, Rasmussen, Thirteen Months

Tags: Barack Obama, Campaign Manager, Cnn, Disapproval, Focus On Health, Health Care Legislation, Health Care Reform, Health Care Summit, Impassioned Plea, Intense Focus, Morning Message, Nevada Town, Nyt, Perils, Political Strategy, Presidential Approval, Presidential Tracking Poll, Proposed Health, Rasmussen, Thirteen Months
Posted in Daily Content | No Comments »

CentristNet