Articles Tagged ‘Americans for Tax Reform’

« Older Entries

Labor Unions Plan Advertising Assault on Baucus; Demand Employer Mandate

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

The United Auto Workers and Teamsters have partnered to publicly oppose health care legislation proposed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), claiming the bill to be “deeply flawed.” They have begun to develop an advertisement that criticizes the plan of Sen. Baucus and outlines what they believe is essential to achieving true reform.

The advertisement issues three key demands:

  1. A public option.
  2. Employer mandate.
  3. Elimination of a proposed tax on high-end health plans.

Ryan Ellis, policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, offered healthcarehorserace.com a glimpse into why he believes the Teamsters and UAW have come out in favor of such a government overhaul of the health care industry and why he “wouldn’t be surprised if other unions followed suit”: 

re: 1. A public option. According to Ellis, the public option is not so much a threat to labor unions if there is an employer mandate imposed on businesses (see re: 2). So, labor unions, like the UAW and Teamsters, can appear to be in favor of earnest reform, regardless of whether it’s true or not, in order to convince Americans that their hearts are true, without being detrimental to their true intention which is…

re: 2. Employer mandate. An employer mandate would require businesses to extend health insurance benefits to all employees or face a severe penalty. According to Ellis, the public option is only acceptable if an employer mandate exists. “Unions know that if you put a public option without an employer mandate, then employers would simply send their employees to the public option,” he explains. “Employer mandates put the unions in good positions to negotiate the best deals possible.”

re: 3. Elimination of a proposed tax on high-end health plans. As it stands now, Sen. Baucus’ plan taxes “Cadillac” health plans, where those whose employer provides more than $8,000 per person or $21,000 per family of coverage annually will be taxed at 40 percent for every extra dollar. The unions oppose this, as Ellis points out, because their control over workers comes from their ability to exchange union dues for cushy health care plans. If the tax on high-end plans exists, then there is less of an incentive for employers to provide luxurious plans, making it difficult for them to negotiate and in turn, provide less incentive for workers to unionize.

Bloomberg adds:

In addition to the autoworkers and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the proposed ad was sent to more than 30 unions. Among them were leaders of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the United Steel Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the National Football League Players Association.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Reid ready to go nuclear on health care

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

As the Senate Finance Committee prepares to announce and begin marking up its health care bill, the Senate’s most powerful Democrat unveiled his intent to use what many are calling “the nuclear option” to ensure passage of a Democrat reform bill by the end of the month. By committing Democrats to the Senate-specific budgetary tool known as reconciliation, which declares certain tax and spending bills as privileged legislation that cannot be blocked by filibuster, Senator Reid is acknowledging a failure on the part of Congressional Democrats and the White House to rally a single Republican vote to pass reform under cloture.

We’ve always had a place at the table for Republicans. There’s one there today. We hope it bears fruit. If we can’t get the 60 votes we need, then we’ll have no alternative but to use reconciliation. I strongly favor a bipartisan approach. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.)

Going nuclear and invoking reconciliation is a significant political move in a number of ways. To better understand (and explain) the political consequences of reconciliation, HealthCareHorseRace.com has spoken to some of the leading conservative groups following the health care reform debate.

First, by only requiring 50 votes (plus that of vice president Biden) to pass the bill means moderate Democrats who have worked to remove the controversial public option could see the government-run plan (and not the co-op experiment anticipated out of Finance) become the preferred health care vehicle in a Senate bill after combining the Finance bill with that of the late Ted Kennedy’s HELP (Health Education Labor and Pensions) Committee.

There is no question that Harry Reid’s invocation of the ‘reconciliation’ process—usually a maneuver reserved for budget bills—to ram the so-called public ‘option’ through the Senate will favor proponents of socialized medicine. The fact is, the votes are not there to invoke cloture on the government-run plan that the Democrat leadership wants, and so Reid may resort to a parliamentary trick to get the plan through with only 51 votes.

It would be the effective end of the filibuster and two-party rule in the Senate. (Robert Romano of Americans for Limited Government.)

Second, reconciliation is a very specific rule which could allow centrist Democrats and Republicans to band together to defeat certain aspects of what will eventually become the Senate bill.

There’s something called the “Byrd rule” which prevents putting non-budget extraneous things on reconciliation bills (which are inherently budgetary). This means that the Senate parliamentarian would likely rule anything not spending or tax related out of order, which would require 60 votes to overcome. Some good examples here are the Medical Advisory Council, the gateway, community rating, guaranteed issue, and self-insurance cutbacks.

If the Democrats were dumb enough to do this (and I don’t think they are), the GOP would immediately start offering “Byrd rule” points of order wherever they could. If the Dems lost the ruling of the parliamentarian, and they didn’t get 60 votes to overcome him, then key chunks of this bill would be stripped out, making it unworkable. (Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform and the Heath Care Freedom Coalition.)

When you look at the big picture, it might appear that Reid’s nuclear threats amount to little more than sabre-rattling. Once the shock and awe of a 50-vote reconciliation maneuver wears off, Democrats still need 60 votes to keep their bill intact. Something which may prove more challenging than Democrat leadership is willing to admit given that the Senate itself held a vote (the DeMint Amendment) on using reconciliation back in the spring in which it promised not to do so despite the House leaving the option on the table in its own budget deliberations.

The biggest problem for Dems going reconciliation is that most of them voted against it, on a 79-14 recorded vote on the DeMint amendment and also on a unanimous voice vote. Reconciliation was not included in the Senate budget, but smuggled in through the House version (even though reconciliation only matters in the Senate) and added in conference. So dozens of Democratic senators would have to explain why they changed their minds about the appropriateness of reconciliation because they lost the public debate over a Washington takeover of health care.

Bottom line is that it’s a desperation tactic and if Democrats go that route they may find 50 much harder to get to than they think. (Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Win it for Teddy?

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

The passing of Senator Ted Kennedy last night marked the end of an era in American politics. The Kennedy name will live on in Massachusetts and national politics to be sure, but the dynasty that was three brothers who would take on and forever change the political landscape of America passes with the Lion.

Perhaps the greatest unfinished business of Senator Kennedy’s public life is health care reform. It was clear to many when Kennedy chose to back a young, brash Senator Obama in last year’s presidential primaries that he saw this as his last best chance to see health care reform passed in his lifetime. Many believe it was health care reform that led Senator Kennedy to challenge a sitting Democrat president for his party’s presidential nomination in 1980.

The role Hillary played in the health care debacle of 1993 and 1994 would be all too easy for Republicans to resurrect under a Clinton presidency, so it was with great hope that Kennedy lent his name and five decades of Kennedy mystique to Obama and his campaign. Obama would repay Kennedy by making health care reform his first domestic priority upon ascending to the White House.

One way or the other, Kennedy’s death will play a major role in the future of the health care reform debate. His passing deprives Democrats of the 60-vote super-majority necessary to block a Republican filibuster and it will likely be months before his seat is filled under a Massachusetts law passed by state Democrats to keep Republican Governor Mitt Romney from naming a successor if John Kerry won the White House back in 2004.

For the Democrats, Kennedy’s passing will likely serve as a clarion call to complete the legacy of the man President Obama referred to this morning as ‘greatest United States Senator of our time.’

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer from the West Bank, President Jimmy Carter remembered his 1979 to 1980 battle with Kennedy for the Democrat nomination and the role that health care reform played in their personal political battle. Carter acknowledged that he and Kennedy “didn’t quite agree on the technique of getting health care guaranteed for everyone, but we both had our hearts in the same direction.”

My hope now, is that although Ted Kennedy won’t be active on the floor anymore, is that his legacy, his commitment, the resonance of  the speeches he made, his dedication over a lifetime will be remembered by his peers in the Senate … and we can still have a comprehensive health care program passed this year.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was quick to turn tragedy into political opportunity.

Senator Kennedy had a grand vision for America, and an unparalleled ability to effect change.  Rooted in his deep patriotism, his abiding faith, and his deep concern for the least among us, no one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors, and ensure equality for all Americans.

Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.

Conservatives are already calling opportunistic Democrats out on using Kennedy’s death as a political tool. While many conservatives were openly hostile of Kennedy’s politics over the years, there are few out there who questioned the man’s patriotism and passion. Yet, the idea of using Kennedy’s death to pass an unpopular reform bill won’t sit well with American conservatives.

I disagreed with Sen. Kennedy on virtually every major issue, but this sad occasion is not a time to try to score political points. Unfortunately, many are already using his passing to promote a political agenda, insisting that the United States must honor him by pushing universal health care. It is wrong, and tactless, to use Sen. Kennedy’s death — or anyone’s — simply to advance a particular policy agenda. This is a time for genuine tribute, not crass politics. (Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation.)

In a phone call with HealthCareHorseRace.com, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, concluded that while the passing of Kennedy may tug at the heartstrings of his colleagues in the Senate, the highly partisan response to Democrat proposals rules out a “win it for Teddy” mentality when lawmakers return from the August recess.

The month of August with the August revolt in the town hall meetings made it very clear that Republicans and, more importantly, middle class independents have broken against a government health care plan. Kennedy’s passing, which might have been a tug on a (longtime Kennedy friend Orrin) Hatch, is countermanded by the fact that Hatch watched all of these things across the country where people are pulling the other way as voters.

So, I think if this had happened 3 or 4 months ago, it might have been the kind of thing that brought some Rs to be able to say why they moved over towards this, but whether you like somebody that you worked with is a weak reason for  voting for a bill that increasingly Americans have a hardened position on and are particularly against it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Americans for Tax Reform: It’s All “Public” in the End

Friday, August 21st, 2009

With recent chatter indicating that the Obama Administration appears willing to drop their “public option” proposal and instead settle for a “co-operatives” system, some Americans might think that Democrats are abandoning their hopes of socializing medicine. According to Ryan Ellis, tax policy analyst for Americans for Tax Reform, that is simply not the case.

“It is important to remember that, truthfully, the public option is still in play,” Ellis explained in an interview with healthcarehorserace.com. “It’s really too early to tell what’s going to happen with the issue and we can’t be too quick to assume they’re ditching it all-together.”

Ellis refers to several reports that claimed the White House and liberals in Congress decided to respond to the unpopularity of their public option plan, and transition to a co-operative system, offering a bit of false hope for the President’s adversaries on the Right.

As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out, President Obama faces a significant challenge ahead. Because the White House has treated the issue of health care reform with such irremediable urgency and elevated it to such importance on the liberal policy agenda, President Obama realizes he must pass something to stick to his word and hopefully, remain in the good graces of a skeptical public.

With that in mind, Ellis knows that the White House and Democrats in Congress will continue to push for sweeping health care reform. The problem now, he says, is that what they are claiming to support and what the legislation actually says are two entirely different things.

“Basically, co-operatives are the exact same as a public option, just called by a different name,” Ellis said. “A system of co-operatives would be just as big, just as damaging as the public option.”

But what about reports that maintain the Wyden-Bennett bill, a “bi-partisan” measure that would institute a co-operative plan, enjoys a “deficit-neutral” rating from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)?

“Just because they claim it is deficit-neutral doesn’t mean it is responsible,” Ellis warned. “All that rating means is that Wyden-Bennett is going to raise taxes just as much as it raises spending.”

“It is important to understand that the co-operatives bill is going to create hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases, force an individual mandate and in the end, create a government-run system.”

“On top of that, they [Democrats] are telling everyone how it’s only going to cost $3 or $4 billion to keep up the program, but what they’re not telling everyone is that that $3 or $4 billion is only for start-up costs,” he continued. 

Wallace Forman of Americans for Tax Reform published a piece Tuesday, August 18, 2009 that echoed Ellis’s very sentiment. The article, entitled “A Public Option Co-op is still a Public Option: And Probably Not a Co-Op,” points out that if health care co-operatives were so wonderful, they would exist, when similar systems, such as credit unions, already do.   

Americans for Tax Reform argues that a co-operative system of health care reform would infringe upon patient choice, cost more than supporters are willing to admit and ultimately open the floodgates for perpetual government interference in care. To make matters worse, a co-operative plan would further empower bureaucrats and political beneficiaries to determine just how health care is handled in the U.S., consistently bypassing the needs of each individual patient.

In particular, Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the key Finance Committee negotiators, has proposed a co-op that would be subsidized by a $10 billion start up fund and controlled by presidential appointees. Schumer has made it clear that he wants a government-run national alternative to the private market.

If a “co-op” is controlled by presidential appointees, it’s unclear in what sense it would actually be a co-op. It would be meaningless to claim that an insurance option was owned by its policy holders if it were in fact controlled by the government. Importantly, HHS Secretary Sebelius seems to have been endorsing Schumer’s version of the co-op instead of the less obviously statist version favored by Senator Kent Conrad. Co-ops are ok, she explained, as long as they are not private insurance companies. She even goes so far as to say that some sort of government-control is in fact the only part of “competition” that is non-negotiable:

“That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition.”

An astute observer should notice some familiar rhetoric in that quote. In their crusade to convince Americans to stand behind a public option, Obamacare supporters attempted to turn conservative principles against the Right. They mocked Republicans for leaning on free market principles, blaming these fundamentals for causing the inevitable (though arguably nonexistent) downfall of society and the plight of the poor.

Suddenly, the Democrats began to cheer on the public option as a method of creating the same competition they condemned just weeks before. If the Right is so in favor of competition, they would whine, why do they oppose letting the government compete with the private sector?

As Forman proves in his piece, it is intellectually dishonest to accept that government is truly competing with the private sector when it is the only competitor allowed in the market. A public option would impose debilitating regulations and obscene tax hikes that would eventually make private sector coverage a mere memory.

Ryan Ellis hopes that the American people can sift through clever naming and framing tactics of the Left to realize that in the end, a co-operatives system is “just as public” as the liberal reform proposals of past.

“If it were to pass, this bill is going to create a government board that will determine benefits and set premiums,” he said. “What’s the difference between this and the public option they wanted? It is all really public.”

Meanwhile, Democrats bicker over how they will tackle health care reform. On the one hand, they must answer to the progressive Democrats who voted America’s most liberal U.S. Senator to be their party’s nominee and ultimately, president. These progressives lament that even a public option is too watered down from the single-payer system for which they pine, and now, they want to hold President Obama accountable for his promises of universal health care. These progressives find leadership in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and champions in extreme leftists like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NV) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

On the other hand, the self-proclaimed “fiscally conservative” Blue Dog Democrats in Congress have consistently resisted submitting to the progressives’ wishes. The Blue Dog Coalition (BDC) is comprised largely by lawmakers whose presence guarantees a solid majority for the Democrats in Congress. When they were a part of the minority in Congress until January 2007, these Blue Dog Democrats cooperated with their progressive counterparts to unite in legislative battles against the GOP. Thanks to sensible campaigning that ran moderate Democrats to appeal to the center-right nature of the country, the Democrats picked up enough seats to take over Congress.

Now, the Democrats control Congress, and therefore, control the direction of the country, and the two factions of the party must decide which philosophy will prevail, and which resulting legislation will be utilized to reform health care. While the progressives still cling tightly to the prospects of state-sponsored health care, the Blue Dog Democrats know their constituents back home are far more conservative than the liberal leadership in Congress that guides them, and voting lockstep with their colleagues could destroy their re-election hopes in 2010. Still, the Blue Dogs know that long after the current health care debate ends, they must work with progressives next year as they push their own legislation forward. So, they stall.

But they can only stall for so long. With an antsy White House and hollering progressives banging at their door, the Blue Dogs yearn for some sort of compromise that satisfies their colleagues and constituents. And many of them seem to think they have found it in the Wyden-Bennett bill, which would ultimately lead to a government takeover of health care but on the surface appears far less frightening than the public option to their constituents.

To obtain “back up,” these Blue Dog Democrats have tried to lure moderate Republicans to support co-operatives as an alternative to the progressives’ proposals and too many seem open to discussing it. But according to Ryan Ellis, Republicans and Blue Dogs should be mindful that no matter the title, any sort of government plan would end up being the public option.

“All they have done is rename the bill. I don’t know why the progressives are complaining about this. It’s exactly what they want, only with a different name,” he concluded. “There’s no consolation in Wyden-Bennett to those who oppose a single-payer because this is still it.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Because I Said So, That’s Why: New York Congressman Knows Better than His Constituents?

Monday, August 17th, 2009

In yet another unfortunately unsurprising exhibition of liberal contempt towards American voters, Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) bragged at the uber-left NetRoots Nation conference this weekend that he happily would vote contrary to the will of his constituents, even despite the severity of their concerns.

In a video captured by the Washington Times and posted by Tim Andrews of Americans for Tax Reform, the New York Democrats explains explicitly that he intends to vote however he wants, regardless of the views of his constituency. “I will vote against the interests of my district,” Congressman Massa proclaimed.

In his corresponding blog post, Andrews argues that the statement indicates a certain “arrogance” and “hubris” about Congressman Massa, though he did not have the intelligence (or at least political aptitude) to stop there. He affirmed his sentiment again by claiming, “I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.”

Political scientists have debated for years as to the appropriate approach lawmakers should take to maintain an effective democratic republic. Some argue that elected leaders should vote with their consciences, while others feel it is more important to answer to the wishes of the people.

Regardless of what each elected official might assume to be the correct manner in which they represent their districts, it is apparent that the liberals in Congress see no value at all in respecting their employers- American voters. Whether it’s Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) refusing to listen to a cancer survivor’s testimony at a town hall and opting instead to chat away on her cell phone, or Congresswoman Melissa Bean (D-IL) seeing no problem in charging constituents $25 to attend her only scheduled public August recess meeting, Democrats have proven that the aim of their events is not to have open and honest conversations with Americans, but instead, to host clever public relations junkets where attendees are mere filler for television b-roll.

And Congressman Eric Massa isn’t helping, either, by claiming that he knows better than his constituents do. And unfortunately, this is only the most recent in the string of episodes proving that such an elitist attitude is more available than Nancy Pelosi’s organic chili in the halls of Congress.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

Understanding Co-operatives

Monday, August 17th, 2009

Since the Obama Administration seems at least somewhat willing to abandon their goal of socializing medicine through a public option, Americans are now forced to understand a whole new health care reform proposal: co-operatives. As if the public option did not prove confusing enough for non-wonkish taxpayers, Congress is now considering implementing a co-op plan to replace the public option as a means of reforming the health care industry.

What are co-operatives?

According to the International Co-operative Alliance, a co-operative is “an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-owned enterprise.” In a co-op, members own and control the employees and services that comprise their business dealings.

Co-operative systems are especially popular in the energy, banking (credit unions) and agricultural industries, with a presence most widespread in rural areas across the U.S. 

What would health care co-operatives look like?

A health care co-operative would be run by a group that could purchase insurance policies on behalf of their members. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) proposed reform legislation that would focus on co-operatives, asserting that it would cost between $3 and $4 billion in federal dollars to begin the program, as opposed to the estimated $1 trillion for a public option plan.

According to the Examiner, the program would “operate under a federal structure with each state having an affiliate but be independent of the government.”

Just like private insurance companies operating today, cooperatives would be required to maintain specific financial reserves in the event of unexpectedly high claims.  This could be a very difficult problem for a start-up cooperative.  Without adequate financial reserves to be able to pay all claims, even catastrophic claims, the cooperative would fail and the members would be left with no coverage.

Health insurance companies  today are usually either stock-holder owned companies, which include the largest companies like United Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna or Humana.  There are also companies organized as non-profits such as Kaiser Permanente.  Outside the health insurance market, there are many examples of “mutual” insurance companies such as Mutual of Omaha and Northwestern Mutual Life.  These companies are actually cooperatives.

Senator Conrad often points to the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound as an example of a mutual insurer. Based in Seattle, Washington, Group Health Cooperative is a consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system that services more than a half million people in Washington and Idaho. Group Health is governed by an 11 member Board of Trustee who are all health plan members and elected by the other members.

Is the Obama Administration concerned with politics or policy?

When faced with the possibility of a public option as health care reform, many Americans feared massive tax hikes that would be levied to pay for such a government overhaul of the industry. Citizens rallied at town halls and Tea Party events around the country to vocalize their disapproval of not only the proposals of Democrats, but also the astounding price of their ideas.

It seems that the White House, despite many attempts to characterize such opposition as “manufactured anger,” has caught on. According to one Administration insider, President Obama conceded in meetings on July 23 and 24 that he would not pursue the public option, responding to pressure from medical groups like the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic. The insider explained that President Obama was not prepared to make his new viewpoint known to the public, as he didn’t want his far left supporters to feel as though he was “backing down” on socializing medicine as he had planned. The source also inquired as to whether or not President Obama had spoken with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about his decision, to which he responded that he had not.

The President will now likely promote co-operatives and an employer mandate instead, where companies would be required to provide insurance for their workers or face a severe penalty. Many adversely affected by such a policy complain that the mandate would force them to cut back production and employment, as some businesses, such as seasonal operations like the agricultural industry, would find it far too expensive to provide these sorts of benefits.

While the Obama Administration likely assumes that removing the public option would silence the vocal disapproval of tax hikes to pay for his proposals, Ryan Ellis, a tax policy analyst at Americans for Tax Reform, claims there is no certainly guarantee that public option alternatives would offer a lightened tax burden for America’s taxpayers.

“Even if it costs less,” Ellis says, “the necessary tax hikes should still be hundreds of billions of dollars. There is no free way to put America on a path to single-payer.”

Are co-operatives a “poor alternative to the public option?”

While Democrats in Congress and the White House have indicated they would be willing to “compromise” on health care reform by dropping the public option and instead passing legislation that would create co-operatives, many believe the measure would actually end up being more of the same- a reckless expansion of government.

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute published his analysis today, maintaining that “opponents of a government takeover of the health care system should not be fooled” by a sudden shift of Democrats to co-operatives over the public option. Tanner believes that “government-run health care is government-run health care no matter what you call it.”

He claims that in a co-operative system, the federal government would enjoy control over one-sixth of the national economy, supplemented by a board of bureaucrats who would use taxpayer money to define benefits, set premiums and mandate operating procedures. Unlike other existing co-ops, Tanner argues, a health care co-operative would not be “owned by its workers and the people who use its services,” but instead, would be managed by the president.

The real issue has never been the “public option” on its own. The issue is whether the government will take over the U.S. health care system, controlling many of our most important, personal, and private decisions. Even without a public option, the bills in Congress would make Americans pay higher taxes and higher premiums, while government bureaucrats determine what insurance benefits they must have and, ultimately, what care they can receive.

Obamacare was a bad idea with an explicit “public option.” It is still a bad idea without one.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion

Obamacare Supporters Align to Combat Conservative Coalition-Building

Friday, August 14th, 2009

According to a post this week in Politico, supporters of President Obama’s plans to create a government overhaul of the health care industry have joined to fight the media and grassroots success of conservative coalitions in efforts to redirect public opinion of liberal reform proposals.

 The group, known as Americans for Stable Quality Care, plans to drop more than $12 million in media buys during the remainder of August recess. The advertising campaign began Thursday at 11 a.m., with targeted states that include Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia.

Americans for Stable Quality Care attempts to counter the Health Care Freedom Coalition, a free market-inspired group of powerful conservative organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, 60 Plus, Medical Society of the District of Columbia, among more than 60 others.

Americans for Stable Quality Care is funded largely by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a group that vowed to spend $150 million from their own coffers to promote Obamacare. It is no surprise that PhRMA serves as the head of this coalition, as the successful passage of sweeping health care legislation would mean their monopoly on the pharmaceutical market in America. 

Some of the other member organizations are:

  • Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
    • The SEIU is the only labor union given a coveted seat at the bargaining table in the health care reform debate. With liabilities in excess of $1.5 billion and a dwindling account of only $1 billion assets, the SEIU desperately needs Obamacare to pass to ease up their financial concerns and retain members. They have been one of the most powerful voices on the Left in advocating health care reform, conducting rallies, crashing conservative events, blogging, etc.
  • American Medical Association (AMA)
    • Despite their early, vocal disapproval of President Obama’s health care reform proposals, the AMA submitted to the White House and Congressional Democrats and began supporting their proposals. According to Kathryn Serkes of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), it was in exchange for a few extra dollars in Medicare reimbursements, even though President Obama ignored their calls for tort reform as a part of health care legislation. The AMA represents a small, diminishing number of doctors, with many leaving the professional organization due to their positions on political issues.
  • FamiliesUSA
    • FamiliesUSA is a self-described “progressive American non-profit consumer health-care advocacy organization” that focuses on grassroots activism, lobbying the Hill and financial development to promote liberal health care agenda. Their new Web site, Stand up for Health Care, includes a blog and activist mobilization page, recruiting new supporters for their cause. FamiliesUSA is certainly an arm of the liberal movement, touting affiliations with powerful Democrats in Congress, including Sen. Chris Dodd, who just so happens to act as ranking member of the Senate’s HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee and who has been instrumental in the development of health care reform legislation. 

Federation of American Hospitals  

  • The Federation of American Hospitals, representing 1,700 medical institutions in the U.S., spent 71 percent of its campaign contributions in 2008 to support Democrats. Strangely enough, the group is headed by Chip Kahn, one of the masterminds behind the defeat of Hillarycare in 1993.

    Politico reports that member organizations understand the necessity of working together to fight the conservative push:

    The official provides a little more backstory: ‘These groups were part of a looser coalition that started back in January that focused on the links between health reform and the economy. Now that the debate is turning on what health reform means for the individual, they felt the need to launch a new front that addresses some of those particulars while debunking some of the myths that are floating around. Plus, these groups recognize that their collective voice packs more punch than if they were to just speak out individually.’

    Here is the advertisement with which they will blitz the airwaves:

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

    Open Left Exposes Obama’s “Verifiably Dishonest” Views on Single-Payer Prospects

    Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

    According to a post by David Sirota published today on the blog “Open Left,” President Barack Obama offered conflicting statements regarding his intentions for health care reform for America.

    Citing his piece appearing a few months ago on Salon.com, Sirota explains that President Obama once proclaimed his support of a single-payer system of health care, where the country would shift to an entirely government-run program sponsored by tax dollars.

    In that speech six years ago, Obama said the only reason single-payer proponents should tolerate delay is “because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

    Now, he has his wish. The White House and Congress are currently controlled by the Democratic Party, which, according to then-Senator Barack Obama, is the key to achieving his goal of socializing medicine. However, just yesterday, President Obama asserted that his attempts at health care reform were not meant to create a single-payer system, adding that he never claimed to support it in the first place. 

    “I have not said I am a single payer supporter.” - Barack Obama, 8/11/09

    President Obama realizes that the elimination of private insurance is an immensely unpopular idea, but one could rightly assume that he was more honest about his far-Left ideologies as an Illinois state senator in 2003 than today, where the president is forced to reckon with the desires of mainstream Americans unsympathetic to his agenda. Now, he must mask his efforts to institute a single-payer system by promoting a “public option.”

    A public option would, according to the White House and supporters of the legislation, create a state-sponsored insurance agency that would “compete” with the private sector to provide coverage for Americans. The public option would be funded by substantial tax hikes, and not just on those earning more than $250,000 a year (Americans for Tax Reform), making private insurance difficult, if not impossible, to afford for both individuals and their employers. Government’s sphere of influence would expand by increases in regulatory measures on insurers, ultimately crowding out the private sector and leading to a complete government overhaul of the health care industry.

    Even President Obama’s biggest cheerleaders can identify when he is, according to Sirota, “lying and/or not at least explaining their broken promises.” While the blogger does support the president’s “health care efforts right now,” he claims he would not be supportive of any president who is untruthful with the American people. To make matters worse, President Obama sees no need to justify his previous or current statements regarding his aims for health care reform:

    Obama has never really offered up an explanation for his about face on single payer, other than implying that it’s not politically realistic now - even though, again, back in 2003, he said it would be politically realistic when Democrats obtained the presidency and Congress.

    This is what is most alarming. It appears that he considers himself beyond reproach, finding it unnecessary to acknowledge his own contradicting perspectives on an issue he seems to care about so deeply. President Obama is simply not held accountable for his statements made six short years ago, leaning instead on empty jargon and attacking his dissenters to distract from the truth of his proposals. For a man who has held four prime-time press conferences in the mere six-and-a-half months of his presidency, more than any of his predecessors in that time span, he has told Americans very little. 

    And unfortunately for us, what he has said is obviously contrary to what he intends.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

    America’s Hall Monitor: White House Demands Intel on Right’s “Disinformation”

    Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

    HCHR’s own Matt Margolis reported yesterday that the White House, or Emanuel Bros. & Co., has been forced to spend a great deal of time reconciling President Obama’s current stance on health care reform, perspectives he’s offered in the past and what he actually intends for the future of health care in America.

    In attempts to streamline their efforts, the White House has used new media sites, such as Twitter, to use taxpayer-funded communications resources to promote the Obama Administration’s legislation that would create a government overhaul of health care in America. They’re also using these media to play defense, asking supporters to alert the White House of any “disinformation” disseminated from opposing camps.

    In a White House blog, entitled “Facts are Stubborn Things” published today, Emanuel Bros. & Co. explained that those who oppose Obamacare are spreading “scary chain emails and videos,” proving yet again how absolutely patronizing and condescending this administration can be. They portray the American people as simpleton victims who cannot possibly discern what is right and wrong for themselves, but instead, fall prey to those on the Right.

    They take this attitude a step further by offering lowly Americans with an “important” task:

    There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

    This request serves two purposes. First, it makes the American people feel as though they are a part of the fight for expanded health care coverage, but really, they are giving them some tiny task, like a mother allowing a child to help stir batter to make a cake, in hopes of their supporters feeling like they’ve done something. Secondly, it allows for the White House to really take advantage of their new role: America’s hall monitor.

    To assert that anyone who opposes them is spouting off bad information is intellectually dishonest. Just as Emanuel Bros. & Co. founder Rahm Emanuel has been accused of undercutting those who stand in his way, they want to take it one step further and keep tabs on those who simply disagree with President Obama’s legislative proposals. Groups they would monitor especially closely? Try Tea Party Patriots, American Liberty Alliance, American Majority, Americans for Prosperity, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, Americans for Tax Reform… and so on and so forth.

    And why would they do this? Given the fact that the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, it would sure take a lot of time to defend against every accusation catapulted in their direction. Furthermore, even if their claims are false (which they are not), any sort of legal action against them would prove futile, since First Amendment protections of speech are very rarely forfeited and even harder to refute for public figures. 

    Since any opinion contradictory to that released by Emanuel Bros. & Co. is now considered “disinformation,” those on the Center-Right should keep the White House occupied by continuing to send out more of it during August recess. It’s fun to keep government employees busy.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

    Grover Norquist: The most influential conservative you’ve never heard of

    Thursday, July 30th, 2009

    Grover Norquist may be the most influential political strategist most Americans have never heard of. Recognized as a conservative thought leader, he has been a Washington, D.C. fixture since the 1980s and is the de-facto leader of the “vast right wing conspiracy”  that brought down Hillarycare in ‘93 and ‘94 and installed George W. Bush in the White House in 2001. He is a co-author of the 1994 Contract with America and was the “field marshall” of the Bush tax cuts. As the chairman of the exclusive Wednesday Meeting, he decides what’s on the menu as conservatives debate the issues of the day and is the field general of the conservative opposition to Democrat plans for healthcare reform in 2009.

    Norquist is both political philosopher and brash political strategist. He once famously said, ”My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

    HealthcareHorserace.com recently sat down with Grover Norquist to discuss the issues, the stakes and the prospects for the healthcare reform debate.

    Beating Hillarycare and the Wednesday Meetings

    In 1993, Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform began a weekly meeting of conservative groups opposed to a government takeover of healthcare and the taxes proposed to pay for it. That group of 20 quickly doubled in size as these healthcare meetings grew into what would come to be known as the Wednesday Meeting.

    It became clear that if you were going to stop Clinton’s grab for government-run healthcare, you had to slow everything that Clinton was doing down. So, our coalition quickly became not the healthcare coalition, but the center-right coalition. If you care about guns, if you care about defense, if you care about spending, get in the room and let’s talk.

    Sixteen years later, the Wednesday Meeting has grown to over 140 members and is the Grand Central Station of conservative thought. While considering a run for the White House in 1999, Texas Governor George W. Bush sent representatives to the meetings - both to educate themselves on the issues but also to drum up grassroots support for a campaign - and continued to do so during his eight-years as President. Yet, while the weekly gathering of think tanks, activist groups, businesses and trade associations is certainly the brain-child of Norquist, he doesn’t use the meeting as a pulpit.

    I want a meeting of 140 leaders. I don’t want a meeting of 140 listeners listening to me or to be implementers of my vision. 

    Veteran of the healthcare reform wars - What’s different this time on healthcare reform?

    As a veteran of the healthcare reform wars of ‘93 and ‘94, Norquist is well-versed in the arguments for and against a government takeover of the American healthcare system and knows the playing field has shifted in favor of the pro-government crowd.

    There are no moderates in the House of Representatives today versus back in ’93 and ’94. In ’93 and ’94, there were Democrats who would vote against the labor unions. Today, when they have a snap vote on card check – which is the most extreme pro-union power bill – all but two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted for it. So, there are one or two – and no more than that – guys willing to say “no” to the trial lawyers and “no” to the unions. So, you no longer have the Blue Dogs – I mean, they call themselves Blue Dogs because they’re in Republican districts, but there aren’t any Blue Dogs in districts that didn’t vote for McCain and Bush. So, there’s no moderate wing (of the Democrat party). There are people who have to appear to be moderate. And, if healthcare is seen as costing too much and being too radical, they will have to vote against it, but if the costs are not focused on, they’ll cheerfully vote for it. These are the idiots who voted for cap-and-trade. These are the guys who voted for the stimulus package. There isn’t a moderate there.

    Despite the odds, Norquist still likes conservative chances to defeat government-run healthcare this time around because the issues haven’t changed.

    I think they’re blinded by their ideology. I think that’s why they made mistakes the last time. It’s why they’re making mistakes this time. They really do believe the state owns your life and it’s okay for the state to decide that some people are too old and they should just die. And, some businessmen have too much money and they should have to give their money to the state. And, some people are too sick and they should have to die in order to make the state’s books balance. This whole thing was killed when it became clear it was rationing back under Clinton. It’s clear that its rationing again. And, that’s not helpful. 

    Every piece of the Reagan coalition – what I call the Leave Us Alone coalition – is threatened by this. The business community is going to be taxed and regulated to pay for it. Citizens will be taxed to pay for it. The social conservatives who would like to make their own decisions based on their own faith and beliefs are going to be told you have to do this and society and taxpayers are going to pay for stuff (abortions) you consider murder. So, there isn’t any part of the coalition that isn’t attacked by this. 

    Savvy Political Veteran and Man of the People

    Norquist is the rarest of political animals. He is, on the one hand, a fixture inside the Beltway and one of the most connected players in conservative politics. Yet, it is his ability to connect to and relate with activist groups across the country that has led to his success as a kingmaker for the conservative movement. In fact, our first interview with Norquist took place during a break in a meeting he was moderating for leaders of Wednesday Meetings that take place in 45 state capitols across America. It is this “coalition wonk” (as his staff at ATR refer to him) and his ability to constantly forge new relationships around conservative principles that has led to the longevity of both the Wednesday Meeting and Norquist’s own influence over the conservative movement.

    In searching for an equivalent leader in the liberal movement, many point to former Clinton chief-of-staff and founder of the Center for American Progress John Podesta. As the head of the America’s leading liberal think tank, Podesta is looked to as his movement’s visionary, but Norquist believes Podesta’s influence is limited by the very politics he champions.

    I’m not familiar with [Podesta] personally, I mean I know who he is. I’m not familiar with how he works.

    The Democratic coalition has two major paying customers – the trial lawyers and the labor unions, so they have a lot more say so. They can walk up to almost every Democrat in the House and Senate and tell them what to do in their very large zone of activity. There’s no similar structure on the (political) right.

    [The conservative movement] has got more amateurs and fewer professionals - more volunteers and fewer paid staff. When we have a rally, everyone comes on their own. When they have a rally, they have all these paid union guys. I’ve had union people demonstrate against me – they show up at noon, they shout for two hours, then you actually see them walk over to the guy in the corner and get paid for being there and sort of clock in and clock out. We don’t pay our people. And, we don’t have structures like organized labor unions to do that.

    Indeed, where money would seem to be king in liberal politics, kingmakers like Norquist are directly responsible for the past, present and future of the conservative movement in America.

    This is the first in a series of articles based on our conversations with Grover Norquist. Coming next, The Conservative Movement Finds its Voice on Healthcare Reform.

    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

    « Older Entries