Jim DeMint « Healthcare Horserace

Does anyone know exactly what GOP-care would look like?

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Over the past several months, Republicans have been blasted by the political left for being the ‘Party of No‘, for spreading disinformation, and for trying to kill health care reform when they should be trying to help President Obama fix the system. It is clear that most Americans believe the system needs reforming, but the nation remains split on whether President Obama and the Democrat Congress is on the right track to do so. This begs the question, exactly what would GOP-care look like if the Republicans were in control of Congress?

In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was asked just how Republicans would define a “win” on health care reform.

Winning is stopping and starting over and getting it right. I don’t know anybody in my Republican conference in the Senate who’s in favor of doing nothing on health care.

Now, in fairness to the Republicans, it is hard to ask them to devote the time to crafting an alternative bill when they don’t have the votes to pass it, but they cannot simply campaign against Obamacare if they want to be seen as credible on health care reform and a credible alternative to lead the nation after the 2010 elections. In a post on The Daily Beast, Denis Calabrese - former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Dick Armey, lays out a game plan for Republicans in 2010. It’s no surprise that coming up with a proactive health care strategy is a key element of that plan.

Have Real Policy Alternatives: Obama is almost right about one thing: The GOP has not had a real alternative to socialized medicine on the table for many, many years. In fact the same can be said for a host of other issues. Independent voters always want to evaluate two different approaches. If they are judging between a flawed solution and no solution, people will tend to pick the flawed solution. Something beats nothing almost every time. The GOP must put as much effort behind selling their approach and contrasting it with Obama’s as they do trashing the president’s proposals, no matter how well-deserved.

So far, it has been admittedly difficult to tell where Republicans stand on health care reform - outside of wanting to defeat Democrat proposals for it - and just what a conservative reform bill might look like. House and Senate Republicans did put bills forward earlier this summer, but there was little cohesion between their offerings and the bills showed a clear division between conservatives on the issue.

Groups like the Heritage Foundation and conservative publications like The American Spectator backed the Patients’ Choice Act favored by Republican senator Tom Coburn and considered by critics on the political right to be an amalgamation of conservative and liberal ideas including health insurance exchanges and a watered-down public option. Center-right conservatives favored Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s Health Care Freedom Plan which called for the very conservative ideas of health care vouchers. Center-right leader Grover Norquist believes compromising with a Democrat party that wants government-run health care isn’t an option and went so far as to compare the Coburn bill to selective amputation in an interview with HealthCareHorseRace.com back in August.

Politicians are particularly prone to how about if we just cut off one finger and you should appreciate all my work to protect your second finger. If you’re going to run a campaign where you have to get popular support, we need to be the no fingers cut off leaders.

Getting one finger cut off is the prelude to them coming back for the other finger. That’s why the DeMint proposal – which is not a compromise but is a bold, conservative, free-market approach, is so helpful. The guys who say lets cut off one finger instead of two or three, think that’s the only alternative way to do it.

This week’s mark-up of Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus‘ America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 promises to be entertaining political theater, but it also promises to show just how divided the Republicans continue to be on the issue of health care reform. Of the 564 amendments filed to the bill ahead of mark-up, those filed by Republicans show little in the way of a united front. Republican Orrin Hatch proposed 47 amendments to the bill and co-sponsored an additional 5 amendments. Even “moderate” Republican Olympia Snowe filed 21 amendments of her own along with another 5 she co-sponsored. Republican amendments run the gamut from Jon Kyl’s amendment to prevent “the federal government’s takeover of health care” to Snowe’s amendment proposing a trigger mechanism for the public option should cooperatives fail to insure 95 percent of Americans.

Getting back to our original question: exactly what would GOP-care look like? It is clearly too early to tell, but defeating the Democrats in this debate and in the 2010 midterm elections could very well depend on figuring it out sooner than later.

Tags: America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, Barack Obama, CNN, Denis Calabrese, Dick Armey, disinformation, Grover Norquist, Health Care Freedom Plan, Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl, Max Baucus, Mitch McConnell, Olympia Snowe, Orrin Hatch, Party of No, Patient’s Choice Act, public-option, Senate Finance Committee, State of the Union, The American Spectator, The Daily Beast, Tom Coburn, trigger
Posted in Policy Alternative | 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: Americans for Limited Government, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Byrd-rule, co-op, Harry Reid, Health Care Freedom Coalition, HELP Committee, Jim DeMint, Joe Biden, Phil Kerpen, public-option, reconciliation, Robert Romano, Ryan Ellis, Senate Finance Committee, Ted Kennedy
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Backtracking Barack: Obama to Endorse a Public Option in Prime-time Address

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Just days after senior Obama Administration aides signaled to media and Congress that the President did not intend to actively promote a public option, a Politico breaking news report revealed that in a prime-time broadcast address to Congress, he will, indeed, push the public option.

President Barack Obama plans to give a strong endorsement of a public option – or government health-insurance plan – in his remarks to Congress on Wednesday night but will stop short of an ultimatum, leaving wiggle room for negotiation as the bill moves through Congress, according to sources familiar with his remarks.

Politico’s Mike Allen believes that the President Obama’s speech will be similar to the one he presented in Cincinnati on Labor Day, touting the public option as a necessary choice “within that basket of insurance choices” that “will help improve quality and bring down costs.”

Sources confirmed that President Obama will also mention the burden imposed by exploitative malpractice litigation, a move meant to draw support from the Republicans who have long endorsed tort reform as a method of reducing medical costs. The mere mention of tort reform is a risky political move for the White House, especially since trial lawyers have given 79 percent of their campaign donations to Democrats since 1999.

According to a leaked talking points memo from the White House, the President will likely not issue any concrete demands for a reform package, but speak generally about the need for an overhaul of the health care system. He will cite one of his favorite platitudes: millions of people die due to a lack of health care. This notion has been rejected by many in the medical community who argue that people are treated with or without insurance in American hospitals each day.

The President will also use a more partisan tone than his previous attempt at encouraging a harmonious, cooperative Congress. The talking points memo indicates that President Obama will, yet again, denounce the “disinformation” coming from his policy adversaries and radicals at town halls who do not, in his view, represent actual Americans. He will also claim that the Republicans should refrain from criticizing his plan when they have one developed of their own. Note: there have been several GOP bills stemming from both chambers of Congress from conservative lawmakers, including Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Congressman Tom Price (R-GA… and 31 co-sponsors), etc.

This sudden shift back to the public option might be a result of a small August Recess bounce in approval ratings for the President’s health care reform agenda. According to political strategist Charles Krauthammer on Tuesday night’s Special Report with Bret Baier, this is only thanks to President Obama’s absence from the political scene during these weeks while he was on vacation.

Still, the President will finally showcase their own vision for health care reform after months of waiting in the wings, a move criticized behind closed doors by Congressional lawmakers who sought his participation and assistance in deflecting public disapproval.

Acknowledging a flawed opening strategy, Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts in an interview aired on “Good Morning America”: “I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed then opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense ….

“So, the intent of the speech .. is to … make sure that the American people are clear exactly what it is that we are proposing … to make sure that Democrats and Republicans understand that I’m open to new ideas, that we’re not being rigid and ideological about this thing, but we do intend to get something done this year. And … to dispel some of the myths and, frankly, silliness that’s been floating out there for quite some time.”

The White House surely hopes that this prime-time speech, the fifth in less than eight months (President Bush had four during his entire presidency), doesn’t spur “silliness” and free market, patient-centered activism.

Tags: Barack Obama, Ellen Carmichael, Jim DeMint, Mike Allen, Paul Ryan, Politico, public-option, Tom Price, tort reform, trial lawyers, white house
Posted in Horserace | 1 Comment »

What part of “free market” don’t you understand?

Friday, August 21st, 2009

The health care reform debate is the very definition of complex. On the one hand, the goal of ensuring universal access to health care is a noble one. No one would argue that point. But, the idea that it simply cannot be done without government intervention has somehow infiltrated the “free market” community. Last I heard, free market advocates were supposed to oppose government intervention into the lives of the people.

Enter the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and their OpenMarket.org blog. This morning, Alex Harris posted a piece called The Great Health Care Reform Trilemma.

I recently posted on Facebook about health care reform and trying to “have it all.” I’m no expert, but it seems to me that you can have two of the following three things:

1. Increased benefits

2. Reduced costs

3. More government involvement

The one you don’t pick will have to go way in the opposite direction.

Harris goes on to use the “death panel” issue as a foil through which to make the point that a government system which reduces costs (#2 and #3) necessarily means rationing of care - and he’s right. He then suggest that rationing of care is okay because the alternative is a government program that is solely concerned with increasing benefits (#1 and #3) - which means skyrocketing costs.

A bunch of nutters on the right got all up in arms about the panels. Why?Because they would reduce benefits. Of course if you want government-run health care, you’ll have to ration. But, my god, isn’t this better than government-run health care that doesn’t ration? Government entitlement programs have unfunded liabilities of $107 trillion, an order of magnitude above what we weakly label the “national debt” and above GDP. Most of that is from Medicare. When we added another government health program, prescription drug coverage for Medicare, this figure rose by $16 trillion, greater than both debt and GDP. And you want to add on more government health care without any rationing to control cost? Seriously?

Where does he get the idea that conservatives challenging government rationing of health care are advocating for government control of anything? That, Alex, is what this fight has been all about. It is a fight against government rule and a fight to protect the very freedoms this country was founded upon.

I’m convinced you have more power to change things than we do. And, when the people in Washington are more afraid of their constituents and their voters than they are of the interest groups that control Washington, then this country is going to start moving in the right direction. (Senator Jim DeMint speaking to supporters in Spartanburg, S.C.)

In all fairness to Alex, he does opine that it would be best if we just got #1 and #2, by getting the government out of health care. But, it is his resignation to the fact that government must become involved that makes no sense when the Democrats are clearly losing on this issue. The polls say it. The protesters at town hall meetings are saying it loud and clear. So, why capitulate? A free-market advocate like the Competitive Enterprise Institute should never cave to pressure for more government intervention in anything - let alone our health care.

Tags: Alex Harris, Competitive Enterprise Institute, free-market, Jim DeMint, OpenMarket.org
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Grover Norquist and the Conservatives find their voice on healthcare reform

Monday, August 17th, 2009

HealthcareHorserace.com recently introduced you to Grover Norquist, “the most influential conservative you’ve never heard of“. As a veteran of the first healthcare wars and a Beltway fixture for nearly three decades, Norquist has been at the forefront of the conservative movement and - along with a couple of guys named Gingrich and Rove - has played a major role in rebuilding the conservative brand. He was a co-author of the 1994 Contract with America which ushered in the new age of conservatism in America and ultimately led to the presidency of George W. Bush. Perhaps no issue better illustrates the evolution of the conservative voice better than healthcare reform.

The “Party of No” becomes the Party of Ideas … Again

Norquist will be the first to admit that “no” was a winning strategy when Hillary Clinton attempted to push healthcare reform through 16 years ago.

[Democrats] almost passed “healthcare reform” back in ’93 and ’94. They failed because they made no effort to reach out to Republicans and because the White House didn’t work as well with Congress as they might and because the business community was pretty united in saying “no”. You had individual companies that wanted the government to absorb their “legacy costs” – General Motors, American Airlines, all the unionized companies thought it was a great idea because they thought a government takeover of healthcare would allow them to hand-over or to void their union contracts and have the government run their healthcare for them like Medicare and Medicaid. Eventually, they figured out that [Democrats] were going to exempt gold-plated union contracts, so that didn’t work for the business community.

Things aren’t quite as simple this time around. A failing economy has left business leaders in a defensive posture and union leaders in a position of strength. A series of poorly executed corporate bailouts and a complete lack of fiscal restraint in the White House has set a “money is no object” precedent and left the American people wondering when help will arrive for them. And, perhaps one of the most politically motivated and partisan Congressional leaderships in the history of our country has labeled political dissent as obstructionist and un-American.

One of the things that Obama and some of the Democrats have done is say we have a plan and you have no plan. Well, that was always a lie. They just spent eight years stopping Republican healthcare reforms everyday. That’s what they did for a living. Now, of course, you put many of those reforms together in the DeMint bill and it allows any Republican elected official to say here’s my plan, here are the eight different ideas in it and I’m for this and I’m against their craziness. It’s a big help to have something you’re for – not that the Democrats would vote for it.

Putting Ideas on Paper: The DeMint Healthcare Freedom Plan

Part of beating [a Democrat] bill is to have a clear statement of what reform you want because people have a sense that there are problems – the price keeps going up and the trial lawyers are stealing all the money. We need to point out our bill deals with the bad trial lawyers, their bill doesn’t. Our bill reduces costs, their bill raises costs. Our bill cuts taxes, their bill raises taxes.

Senator Jim DeMint’s Healthcare Freedom Plan lays out a clearly conservative strategy that promises to ”insure more Americans in half the time at no cost.” According to literature posted on the Senator’s website, the right approach to reform is one that:

• Protects the right of Americans to keep their employer-based plan without having to pay additional taxes on those benefits.
• Provides Americans without employer-based coverage with vouchers of $2000 for individuals and $5000 for families to purchase health insurance. The premium for the average private policy sold in the individual market in 2007 was $1,896 for an individual and $4,392 for a family (Source: eHealthInsurance)
• Allows Americans with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to use their HSA funds to pay for insurance premiums, encouraging employers to contribute to their employees’ HSAs.
• Creates a nationwide market for health insurance by allowing individuals to purchase health insurance plans in any state.
• Provides block grants to states to develop innovative models that ensure affordable health insurance coverage for Americans with pre-existing health conditions.
• Reduces predatory and frivolous malpractice lawsuits against physicians and hospitals.
• Assures that every health care consumer has access to price information prior to treatment so they can make informed decisions about their care.
• Repeals financial bailouts (TARP) to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.

(Taken from a press release announcing DeMint’s Healthcare Freedom Plan.)

If the ‘93-’94 healthcare battle was the first of a protracted war, Norquist - like any good general - has learned from both the victories and defeats of the past.

So, one, you can say [the Democrat proposals are] worse than the present status quo – it will make things worse, not better. And, two, we have something to make things better. Step one is stop the bad stuff. Step two is be there with your reforms when you’ve got the votes to enact them.

If you snapped your fingers and put the Republicans in charge of the House and Senate, we didn’t go into the Republican control of the House and Senate in ’93 and ’94 with an articulated list of reforms that we were for. For instance, The Contract with America I don’t think focused on specific healthcare stuff, like healthcare savings accounts. That’s why fighting the Democrats allows Republicans and conservatives to focus on a series of reforms that we can explain and vote for and explain publicly.

The Debate within the Republican Party: Selective Amputation?!?

Of course, the DeMint Healthcare Freedom Plan isn’t the only Republican healthcare reform proposal on the table. Dr. Tom Coburn was joined by Republican Congressmen and Senators in authoring The Patient’s Choice Act of 2009. Many conservatives - including Norquist - view the Coburn bill as an amalgamation of liberal and conservative ideas on healthcare reform that concedes and aims to water down an eventual Democrat victory.

There are always people who when the other team wants to cut off two of your fingers, want to negotiate to lose one finger. And, so they run around with a lets only cut off one finger argument. That’s an insider’s game; it’s the kind of thing you can sell a Congressman or a Senator. It’s not the kind of thing you can go give a speech to the Chamber of Commerce or a state taxpayer group and say here’s what we’re going to do: we’ll be for small tax increases on all of you - yeah! What?

Politicians are particularly prone to how about if we just cut off one finger and you should appreciate all my work to protect your second finger. If you’re going to run a campaign where you have to get popular support, we need to be the no fingers cut off leaders.

Getting one finger cut off is the prelude to them coming back for the other finger. That’s why the DeMint proposal – which is not a compromise but is a bold, conservative, free-market approach, is so helpful. The guys who say lets cut off one finger instead of two or three, think that’s the only alternative way to do it.

To Norquist’s mind, that difference in philosophy is nothing less than a battle for the hearts and minds of the conservative movement. The “let’s only cut off one finger” camp appears to be led by The Heritage Foundation, which came out in support of the Coburn bill. Norquist’s own Health Care Freedom Coalition, which publicly supports DeMint and his Healthcare Freedom Plan, is out there trying to save your hand.

First of all, in a free society you can never speak with one voice and you wouldn’t want to be able to force it. There have been some efforts by some on the right – and Heritage did this in ’93 and ’94 [and again with the Coburn bill] – where they had an alternative that, in my view, was too much government. And, in their view, they thought if we don’t do this, [the Democrats] pass something worse.

Drawing a Line in the Sand: What it means to be a Republican

Norquist clearly believes that the battle over healthcare reform will determine the future of a Republican party grappling with what it means to be a 21st century American conservative. And, in doing so, he turns to the 20th century political icon who reinvented the Republican Party.

Ronald Reagan came in and said, instead of debating how much we’re going to raise taxes, here’s what we’re going to do: we’re going to cut them. Whoa! That’s a much stronger position. Instead of negotiating to lose slowly we’re going to beat them. Those are game changers.

I think you’re much better off with a common sense radical proposal than with anything that’s a compromise. Compromise is convoluted and difficult to understand because its being drafted between what we have and what somebody else wants, so its more complicated than the status quo, more complicated than the other guys idea and complication is the enemy of people with short attention spans and that’s most people these days. Because, they’re busy. They have lives.

The House doesn’t read the bills, why do you think the American people are going to read and understand these bills? So, I am a strong advocate for going on offense rather than defense. And, being the don’t cut off any fingers – not take one or two and leave the rest for us this week.

This will be a battle to the bloody end and one in which surrender is the ultimate defeat. Defecting to the side of compromise is treason and is punishable by expulsion from the conservative movement. Norquist’s Healthcare Freedom Coalition has already begun to name potential Republican turncoats who - in their words - “are going to make you buy health insurance“, “support price controls“, and “support a guaranteed coverage (guaranteed issue) mandate“.

If the administration passes something and they have a liberal Republican joining them, nobody thinks they’ve done something that wasn’t liberal. The two women from Maine (Senator’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) voted for the stimulus package and everyone hates the stimulus package and everybody thinks it was a crooked, bad thing Obama and the Democrats did. Nobody says oh it’s bipartisan because the two liberals from Maine voted for it. That’s not bipartisan.

And the same thing, anybody who votes for government run healthcare is going to be somebody who kind of by definition isn’t an R[epublican]. It would take 20 Republican votes to make it bipartisan in the Senate. That isn’t happening. So, it won’t be bipartisan even if they pick off some guy and pretend it is.

Tags: Contract with America, George W. Bush, gold-plated, Grover Norquist, Health Care Freedom Coalition, Healthcare Freedom Plan, Heritage Foundation, Hillary Clinton, Jim DeMint, Karl Rove, Medicaid, Medicare, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, Patient’s Choice Act, Ronald Reagan, Susan Collins, Tom Coburn, unions
Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

Paying for Reform: Taxing benefits is back on the table

Monday, July 27th, 2009

As reported by Politico’s Mike Allen over the weekend, taxing health benefits to pay for healthcare reform is back on the table and gaining momentum as Democrat lawmakers make a final push to get reform legislation voted on before the August recess.

According to Allen, “White House officials are embracing a plan to tax “gold-plated, Cadillac” insurance policies, giving momentum to an idea that is receiving bipartisan consideration on Capitol Hill.” (Tax on ‘gold-plated’ health care plans gains ground, Politico)

The plan, which is currently being considered by the Senate Finance Committee appears to be a merging of two less popular revenue schemes previously floated by the House and the Senate HELP (Health Education Labor and Pensions) Committee that called for taxing individuals on their employer-provided health benefits and a surtax on wealthy Americans and small businesses. Instead, the proposal being championed by Senator John Kerry would tax insurance companies or employers who offer high-end insurance plans.

Specifics on the plan itself and which insurance policies might qualify as “gold-plated” are hard to come by, but the concept is gaining support from the White House and “Blue Dog” Democrats who have proven an obstacle to getting legislation out of committee in the House and Senate. Even Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, is said to be “taking an intense look at it,” according to Bloomberg News.

What (President Obama) said was that this was, you know, that this was an intriguing idea to put an excise tax on high end health care policies like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have the $40,000 policies. His big interest is in keeping the yoke of this, the burden of this off of the middle class who are struggling in this the economy. If it meets that test, then he will certainly give it consideration. So I think that is certainly a possibility. There are other possibilities out there as well. (White House advisor David Axelrod on CBS’s Face the Nation. Transcript from CQ Politics)

That is a very interesting and promising new development in the discussions. I think the better way to describe it is like this. First of all, this is a free country, you should be able to buy whatever health insurance you want to with your own money. But you should not be able to force your fellow taxpayers to subsidize your choice of these super luxury plans. Reading about one today for Goldman Sachs that is $40,000 per family. That is fine if you want to buy that with your own money but you shouldn’t be able to force middle-income taxpayers to subsidize your decision to buy that policy.

A lot of folks don’t understand today’s very complex tax system which does, in fact, subsidize the policies of the highest income people in America, and really doesn’t give much of a tax break at all to regular working Americans. So I think there is a way to make that tax system a lot fairer than it has been in the past. (”Blue Dog” Democrat Congressman Jim Cooper on CBS’s Face the Nation. Transcript from CQ Politics)

But conservatives believe going after these high-end insurance policies is nothing more than an indirect tax on consumers with costs ultimately trickling down to the healthcare policies of everyday Americans.

Well, I can tell a lot of these folks (who support the idea) have not been in business. So, if you tax the insurance companies, it’s going to affect the cost of every policy. (Republican Senator Jim DeMint on ABC’s This Week. Transcript from CQ Politics)

Whether the idea is one conservative Republicans can live with may be moot if Democrats can get their “Blue Dog” colleagues in the House on board and win the support of Senator Grassley and liberal Republican Olympia Snowe to vote the bill out of the Finance Committee.

Tags: Barack Obama, Blue Dog Democrats, Cadillac, CBS, Chuck Grassley, David Axelrod, Face the Nation, gold-plated, HELP Committee, Jim Cooper, Jim DeMint, John Kerry, Mike Allen, Olympia Snowe, Politico, Senate Finance Committee, This Week
Posted in Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion

Healthcare reform as political theater

Friday, July 24th, 2009

Much has been made over the past week regarding comments by Senator Jim DeMint likening a defeat of President Obama’s push for healthcare reform to Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him and we will show that we can, along with the American people, begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society.”

DeMint’s comment was clearly meant to be a reference to the “big picture” as conservatives liken Democrat attempts at government intervention in the American healthcare system to President Dwight Eisnehower’s “domino theory” during the Cold War, as explained in the following exchange with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto.

“He’s been on a rampage to take over various aspects of our economy and spend and create debt that we’ve never seen before and raise taxes on just about every American. We’ve got to stop him.If we don’t, he’s going to get right on this cap and trade energy tax and a lot of the other agenda items that he’s just been steam rolling through Congress for his first few months.” (Senator DeMint on Your World with Neil Cavuto)

Despite this clarification, the now infamous Waterloo reference has pulled back the curtain on the motivations of both Democrats and Republicans in the battle over healthcare reform and revealed the debate to be as much about political theater as it is a philosophical debate over how best to solve a fundamental problem facing everyday Americans.

The political reality is that presidents are generally most effective in the first half of their first term. They enter office with popular support - often claiming a political mandate as a result of their election and defeat of an incumbent - and a Congress willing to compromise while the electoral landscape settles in for the long haul. The midterm elections - which for Obama are next year - trend towards a loss of seats in Congress for the president’s party - for example, the rise to power of Newt Gingrich and Republicans in 1994 - and a more difficult road ahead on major initiatives. It is for these reasons that President Obama and Congressional Democrats feel a sense of urgency and why Republicans hope to drag out the debate.

I just hope the President keeps talking about it, keeps trying to rush it through. We can stall it. And that’s going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election. (Republican Senator James Inhofe to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday, July 22, 2009)

Democrats believe that passing comprehensive healthcare reform in 2009 - or, frankly in early 2010 before the House checks out for the year to begin running for re-election - could very well buck the trend of Congressional losses and reinforce their perceived political mandate.

When the democrats — and hopefully bipartisanly — pass this health care reform, this is bigger than anything most of us have ever done in our political lives. Republicans know that passing real health care reform, meaningful health care reform for the American people, which is relevant to their lives, solves their problems, is politically powerful, and they must stop it. They will do everything they can to stop it, not only because they disagree philosophically, but because they know politically that this is so very powerful. (Nancy Pelosi to Capitol Hill reporters on Wednesday, July 22, 2009)

It is unclear whether Republicans are more motivated by the risk of losing more seats in Congress or the philosophical damage that a healthcare reform victory could lead to over the course of the next year, but it is clear that the debate has become as much about politics as it has about reform.

If they can beat the president on health care reform, they’ve scored a big political victory. I actually appreciate what Senator DeMint said and Senator Inhofe. I’m different than everybody, I’m not going to criticize them. I compliment them. They’re honest. (White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition)

Tags: Barack Obama, domino theory, Fox News, James Inhofe, Jim DeMint, Nancy Pelosi, Neil Cavuto, Newt Gingrich, Rahm Emanuel, Waterloo
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Time keeps on slipping - health care reform express slowing

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

Barack Obama is letting up on the August recess deadline for getting health care reform bills approved in the House and Senate, and forces on both sides are renewing their efforts to pressure passage or ensure a swift death the health care express.

“In his most recent remarks, President Obama has stopped mentioning what had been his mantra — that the House and Senate finish their health-care bills by the August recess — and switched to a less specific call to fast action,” Jonathan Martin writes in Politico

“In remarks Friday in the White House Diplomatic Room, Obama said “now is not the time to slow down” but only promised health care reform would “happen this year.” He ignored a reporter’s question about pushing back his goal of having a bill before the start of the congressional recess.”

Seizing on the moment, Conservative influencers like Bill Kristol and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are calling for a death blow to Obamacare.

No doubt, the left’s use of the Kristol blog, Kill It, and Start Over, is thrilling the Weekly Standard editor who said of the reform bills, “This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill.”

But his opening statement, “With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible,” is drawing fire from the Left.

The administration has tried to turn both leaders’ words against them, as reported by Politico’s Carol E. Lee.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended Obama’s tactic of directly engaging DeMint and went a step further, calling out conservative columnist Bill Kristol as one of those Republicans who are peddling “a breathtaking message.”

Obama “could just have easily have quoted a Republican strategist today who said to go for the kill and asked opponents to resist the temptation to be responsible,”

DeMint’s call to “stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo” (audio) have been widely circulated, even by the president, as evidence that the Right is simply playing politics with the health care issue.

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reported on an invite-only conference call President Obama made with liberal bloggers, rallying the troops to pressure congress into action:

“I think it was telling, some of you may have seen, a Republican senator this weekend saying, we are just going to delay and delay because if we can stop Obama on this one, this is going to be his Waterloo. We will break him,” he said of the remarks made by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C). “That was a quote. And I think it indicates the degree to which a lot of folks may sincerely think that the more time we take the better off we are going to be but I also think there are some who deliberately want to delay this process because they know the longer the special interests have to run negative ads or lobby members of congress, the more difficult it becomes to get this done.”

Tags: America's Health Insurance Plans, Carol E. Lee, Huffington Post, Jim DeMint, Jonathan Martin, Politico, Sam Stein, The Weekly Standard, William Kristol
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

To spend or not to spend?

Monday, July 6th, 2009

As the Senate reconvenes for the remainder of July, the attention of many following the Healthcare Horserace will turn to Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee. A month after Senator Ted Kennedy tested the waters with the Affordable Health Choices Act and only weeks after the House of Representatives floated its own version of healthcare reform, many believe any real chance of a bipartisan bill making it to the desk of President Obama will originate within Finance. Perhaps the biggest hurdle facing Baucus is the decision to spend or not to spend. And within that decision may lie the fate of not only the American healthcare system but that of the Democrat majority in Congress.

All indications are that Baucus is committed to producing a healthcare reform bill with a projected cost of no more than $1 trillion over the next decade - significantly lower than the $1.6 trillion price tag on his first attempt that saw the Congressional Budget Office and Blue Dog Democrats send him back to the drawing board. To many, this is the worst of both worlds. Much to the ire of conservatives, it will still likely mean a significant tax increase for working Americans. It will also mean a significant step back from the promise of universal healthcare that ushered the Democrats into power last November. Of course, the alternative is to ignore the price tag and deliver on the promise of universal healthcare risking adding what some estimate to be as much as $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade.

Given these two scenarios, Democrats would appear to believe that passing a watered down reform package is preferable to failing to deliver a bill for the President’s signature before Congress breaks for the year in late October. Polling and the daily headlines would seem to indicate otherwise.

While nearly every poll on healthcare reform concludes that the majority of Americans believe the healthcare system is flawed and should be reformed, a recent Washington Post - ABC News poll indicates that a majority of the same are concerned about the direction and tone Democrats have taken on reform.

Most respondents are “very concerned” that health-care reform would lead to higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices, a bigger deficit, diminished insurance coverage and more government bureaucracy. About six in 10 are at least somewhat worried about all of these factors, underscoring the challenges for lawmakers as they attempt to restructure the nation’s $2.3 trillion health-care system.

That message hasn’t deterred those on the far left who believe nothing short of a government takeover of the healthcare system will remedy the fraud and spiraling costs associated with healthcare insurance. A little more than a week ago, former Democratic National Committee chairman (and former presidential hopeful) Howard Dean drew a clear line in the sand on the reform issue:

“We are here; we’re not going away. We voted for change a few months ago. We expect change. And if we don’t get it, there’s going to be more change.”

Specifically, Dean is pushing hard for the controversial public option insurance plan which has become the litmus test on healthcare reform for the far left who don’t believe they can get passage of a single-payer system akin to that of Canada. These are the very same people who ushered Democrats into power less than a year ago and who Dean promises will send Democrats packing if they don’t deliver. Nearly 40,000 supporters have signed Dean’s online petition to support the public option.

Polls by CNN and Quinnipiac heading into the holiday weekend indicate that the price tag associated with direct government intervention and the very real concern that the quality of care many Americans receive would actually decrease under a public option are causing the majority of Americans to lose their appetite for the kind of reform Democrats are offering. It would seem that a battle is brewing within the Democrat party.

There is, however, another option should Baucus prove brave enough.

Last week, HealthcareHorserace.com’s Ellen Carmichael reported on an alternative plan offered by Republican Senator Jim DeMint.

“This is a bill that we can proud to stand behind,” Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform explained in an interview with Healthcare Horserace (last week). “It is not a massive expansion of government. It won’t raise taxes. It won’t increase regulation. It won’t mean more spending.”

Indeed, it seems that conservative leaders understand the apprehension of the American people to spend more money, causing a never-ending deficit spiral for the federal government. DeMint’s bill would include tax credits for the uninsured, in the form of $2,000 per individual or $5,000 per family, that would be funded entirely by the return of TARP money. The GOP is, in essence, “killing two birds with one stone”: capitalizing on the Americans’ frustration with the bailouts and returning more dollars to the taxpayers.

Historical precedent dictates that at least sitting down with DeMint and his colleagues to consider using their bill as a starting point for a compromise plan would be a smart political play. It was President Obama’s own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel who pointed out the potential dangers of leaving Republicans out in the cold during a recent D.C. media luncheon.

Once he was through defending the current plan, Emanuel turned to a role he is quite familiar with - that of the attack dog. Emanuel was quick to point out the savvy of the Obama Administration and how it would succeed where the Clintons failed. Specifically, he pointed to the missed opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill with the support of former Republican Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee.

The difference between Chafee and Clinton was employer vs. employee mandate. And those who weren’t there, Clinton was for employer, Chafee was for employee. After that, you could pretty much write it all off, as just kind of like, nothing.

I for one begged, just bring him into the oval, look him in the eyes, and say we’re going to call it the Chafee Bill, He had 33 Republicans at that time on his bill, it could be 32, but it was in the 30s. And just say, I have one change I would like, but we’re gonna call it your bill.

So, and I think if you look back, there was a big mistake.

Baucus may have an opportunity to pursue compromise while saving face with the extreme left compliments of Joe Lieberman. Baucus is expected to meet with Lieberman and an ad hoc group of moderate senators over the next two weeks as the Independent from Connecticut looks to play peacemaker in the healthcare wars in Washington, D.C. after breaking ranks with the Democrat caucus last week over the public option insurance plan.

With the ball squarely in Baucus’ court for the next several weeks, the senator from Montana has quickly outdistanced President Obama as the most powerful man in Washington, D.C. The question now is to spend or not to spend?

Tags: ABC News, Affordable Health Choices Act, Barack Obama, Blue Dog Democrats, Canadian-style healthcare, Congressional Budget Office, Democrats, Grover Norquist, healthcare reform, House of Representatives, Howard Dean, Jim DeMint, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, October deadline, public-option, Rahm Emanuel, Republicans, Senate, Senate Finance Committee, single-payer system, Ted Kennedy, Washington Post
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Conservatives Invigorated by Successes, Provide Alternatives in Fight Against Socializing Health Care

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

While the mainstream media manipulates Americans into believing that universal health care is an inevitable victory for the Left, conservatives quietly rejoice about milestone victories along the way, slowly but surely chipping away at the likelihood of a successful passage of a so-called public option.

Still aware of the difficulties that lie ahead, these victories offer a nudge of encouragement to those in the line of fire. Center-right political activism and policy groups have joined to create a coalition that promotes free market and patient-centered solutions to health care reform.

The most recent of their initiatives comes from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) who last week proposed his “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a conservative alternative that empowers patients and their doctors to make the best decisions regarding their care based on effectiveness, accessibility and affordability.

Prior to the proposal of this legislation, one of the largest criticisms of the conservative response to President Obama’s health care ambitions was that the GOP seemed to operate only as the “Party of No.” Some critics argued that Republicans opposed Sen. Kennedy’s (D-MA) “Affordable Health Choices Act” only because the measure came from the other side of the aisle. The DeMint bill very clearly and credibly negates that perception.

“This is a bill that we can proud to stand behind,” Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform explained in an interview with Healthcare Horserace this week. “It is not a massive expansion of government. It won’t raise taxes. It won’t increase regulation. It won’t mean more spending.”

Indeed, it seems that conservative leaders understand the apprehension of the American people to spend more money, causing a never-ending deficit spiral for the federal government. DeMint’s bill would include tax credits for the uninsured, in the form of $2,000 per individual or $5,000 per family, that would be funded entirely by the return of TARP money. The GOP is, in essence, “killing two birds with one stone”: capitalizing on the Americans’ frustration with the bailouts and returning more dollars to the taxpayers.

The bill would also mandate solid reforms that include strict caps on medical malpractice suits, transparency in costs for health care providers, block grants for states that would offer coverage for the previously-deemed uninsurable and affirmation of the right to choice for patients.

Although the Republicans will likely be unable to garner enough votes necessary to pass the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” the legislation unmistakably signals that their party recognizes the need for reform based on tried-and-true free market principles. It also proves that the GOP intends to take an active role in the health care reform debate and will not merely accept their status as a political minority.

This demonstration of political “hustle” can be seen most recently in Friday’s cap-and-trade(tax) fight. Although the conservatives came up short, thanks to the eight Republicans who switched sides to provide Waxman-Markey a 219-212 victory, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and his friends on the Right were able to sway the votes of some 44 “moderate” Democrats from conservative states whose energy interests dictate their economic stability. Although Republicans are rightfully frustrated with their 8 colleagues who voted in favor of the bill, they are delighted to see that 44 Democrats, who are in the party of a solid majority, were willing to vote against the legislation in this bill. Since the margin of victory was so tiny, a miniscule seven votes, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) needed every Democrat she could get. And 44 of them still sided against her.

What does this mean for the fight against universal health care? The GOP, though probably a bit dishearetened after losing on the cap-and-trade(tax) bill in the House, has a better chance to beat Waxman-Markey in the Senate. And it was somewhat of a victory on the House side after all, as they broke down the majority enough to make them sweat. This confidence and, more importantly, persistence, will help them beat a “public option” bill after all. If they can hold onto these 44, gain a few more and get their own folks in line, they will undoubtedly be able to block universal health care.

And they feel good about it. After all, there is serious speculation that in order to pay for a universal health care program, the federal government would have to instate a pretty serious tax increase, a technique already denounced by some of the Left’s most loyal leaders, including Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). It is probably worth noting that Sen. Dodd, a five-time U.S. Senator who is a ranking member of Kennedy’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), is enduring a dismal approval rating of 38 percent, and faces a tough re-election bid in 2010.

“I feel more confident than I have ever before about beating this thing,” Norquist concluded. “I’m certain we will be able to convince enough Democrats that it’s worth their while to cross over and side with the interests of their constituents.”

Congress is currently on one if its vacations, or a District Work Period, for an entire week to celebrate Independence Day. And of course, there’s that month-long recess in August.

Tags: Affordable Health Choice Act, American Health Choices Act, Americans for Tax Reform, Blue Dog Democrats, cap-and-trade, Chris Dodd, Grover Norquist, Health Care Freedom Plan, Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, Jim DeMint, Kennedy, Obama, public-option
Posted in The Players | 2 Comments »

Articles Tagged ‘Jim DeMint’